Shorties or Longtubes?
07-14-2008, 06:50 PM
#21
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 614
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
ORIGINAL: jakeachy
And to clear it up before the waters become too muddy; if you change the airflow characteristics you could use a tune to optimize. This is true for EFI as well as carb. For example lets conduct a thought experiment in extremes that ANYbody can follow. 1966 289 stock veh, the car has cast iron exh manifolids that go to small dia single pipe and muffler, it is some 5-6 feet of tubing! The car is tuned to run as best it can with what it has, it does not matter in this experiment the details such as carb but lets say it has some 4 barrel carb. You tune the system: now the jets, metering rods, are optimal for the entire engine system. The AF ratio is adjusted. The timing curve, initial advance even vaccum are adjusted to optimize the goal; max hp or max mpg whichever... This is part of what is called "TUNING" and you dont tune just the air cleaner, you tune the engine SYSTEM.
Now you install zoomies on the car.
Do you really think that thats the best thing to do? Maybe not but this is our extreme example huh?? OK does it run like S? yup ok but now you can get it to run BETTER, this is TUNING, yes? A car is never perfect, perfect is an abstract symbol never to be realized... but with tuning you can get better. and yes if you change your 5.0 mustang (or the carb example above) stock exhaust to something like long tube headers off road 3" x pipe with cut-outs you better believe that you could use a tune to get the car to utilize the changes you made, if you dont want something about the car to be better like POWER for one then why upgrade your parts
jakeachy In the future please - you should prove somebody is wrong or give examples to support your opinion if you are going to call someone ignorant, wrong, stupid... If not, when they provide examples YOU sure do look that way. More so because you were one wrong who also had to go and whine about it all.
94StinkinLincoln has it right, if you want a whole bunch of power then longtubes will allow more maximum flow but on the other hand you can make serious power with smog legal parts. Anaylize your goal and dont let extra things get in the way of your goal for the car. I would say that most street driven 5.0 sized NA with stock rev limiter would not need long tubes but they have a cool factor that is worth something more than need!
07-14-2008, 07:01 PM
#22
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 755
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
Hamutoffi appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge but im afraid it has nothing to do with putting longtubes on my 95 vs shortys. Please cut out the girlish arguing. So are the longtubes going to take a couple of days and alot of blood sweat and tears on a 95? I would imagine the foxbodies are easier to install them on.
07-14-2008, 07:07 PM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CF,WI
Posts: 970
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
ORIGINAL: Hamutoff
Pretty low how you attack me for taking you seriously
And to clear it up before the waters become too muddy; if you change the airflow characteristics you could use a tune to optimize. This is true for EFI as well as carb. For example lets conduct a thought experiment in extremes that ANYbody can follow. 1966 289 stock veh, the car has cast iron exh manifolids that go to small dia single pipe and muffler, it is some 5-6 feet of tubing! The car is tuned to run as best it can with what it has, it does not matter in this experiment the details such as carb but lets say it has some 4 barrel carb. You tune the system: now the jets, metering rods, are optimal for the entire engine system. The AF ratio is adjusted. The timing curve, initial advance even vaccum are adjusted to optimize the goal; max hp or max mpg whichever... This is part of what is called "TUNING" and you dont tune just the air cleaner, you tune the engine SYSTEM.
Now you install zoomies on the car.
Do you really think that thats the best thing to do? Maybe not but this is our extreme example huh?? OK does it run like S? yup ok but now you can get it to run BETTER, this is TUNING, yes? A car is never perfect, perfect is an abstract symbol never to be realized... but with tuning you can get better. and yes if you change your 5.0 mustang (or the carb example above) stock exhaust to something like long tube headers off road 3" x pipe with cut-outs you better believe that you could use a tune to get the car to utilize the changes you made, if you dont want something about the car to be better like POWER for one then why upgrade your parts
jakeachy In the future please - you should prove somebody is wrong or give examples to support your opinion if you are going to call someone ignorant, wrong, stupid... If not, when they provide examples YOU sure do look that way. More so because you were one wrong who also had to go and whine about it all.
94StinkinLincoln has it right, if you want a whole bunch of power then longtubes will allow more maximum flow but on the other hand you can make serious power with smog legal parts. Anaylize your goal and dont let extra things get in the way of your goal for the car. I would say that most street driven 5.0 sized NA with stock rev limiter would not need long tubes but they have a cool factor that is worth something more than need!
ORIGINAL: jakeachy
And to clear it up before the waters become too muddy; if you change the airflow characteristics you could use a tune to optimize. This is true for EFI as well as carb. For example lets conduct a thought experiment in extremes that ANYbody can follow. 1966 289 stock veh, the car has cast iron exh manifolids that go to small dia single pipe and muffler, it is some 5-6 feet of tubing! The car is tuned to run as best it can with what it has, it does not matter in this experiment the details such as carb but lets say it has some 4 barrel carb. You tune the system: now the jets, metering rods, are optimal for the entire engine system. The AF ratio is adjusted. The timing curve, initial advance even vaccum are adjusted to optimize the goal; max hp or max mpg whichever... This is part of what is called "TUNING" and you dont tune just the air cleaner, you tune the engine SYSTEM.
Now you install zoomies on the car.
Do you really think that thats the best thing to do? Maybe not but this is our extreme example huh?? OK does it run like S? yup ok but now you can get it to run BETTER, this is TUNING, yes? A car is never perfect, perfect is an abstract symbol never to be realized... but with tuning you can get better. and yes if you change your 5.0 mustang (or the carb example above) stock exhaust to something like long tube headers off road 3" x pipe with cut-outs you better believe that you could use a tune to get the car to utilize the changes you made, if you dont want something about the car to be better like POWER for one then why upgrade your parts
jakeachy In the future please - you should prove somebody is wrong or give examples to support your opinion if you are going to call someone ignorant, wrong, stupid... If not, when they provide examples YOU sure do look that way. More so because you were one wrong who also had to go and whine about it all.
94StinkinLincoln has it right, if you want a whole bunch of power then longtubes will allow more maximum flow but on the other hand you can make serious power with smog legal parts. Anaylize your goal and dont let extra things get in the way of your goal for the car. I would say that most street driven 5.0 sized NA with stock rev limiter would not need long tubes but they have a cool factor that is worth something more than need!
And you sure seem like youve never tuned a car, or had it done.
and you say 3" pipe- your credibility just dropped. If you are as smart as you say you are, youd know there is performance LOST on a bolt on 5.0 from 2.5" to 3.0"! again, its called exhaust velocity, and scavenging, and by putting 3" pipe onto a stockish car, you are loosing that scavenging effect.
07-14-2008, 07:25 PM
#25
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: louisiana
Posts: 2,763
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
ORIGINAL: 1970coupe
Hamutoffi appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge but im afraid it has nothing to do with putting longtubes on my 95 vs shortys. Please cut out the girlish arguing. So are the longtubes going to take a couple of days and alot of blood sweat and tears on a 95? I would imagine the foxbodies are easier to install them on.
Hamutoffi appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge but im afraid it has nothing to do with putting longtubes on my 95 vs shortys. Please cut out the girlish arguing. So are the longtubes going to take a couple of days and alot of blood sweat and tears on a 95? I would imagine the foxbodies are easier to install them on.
wait, you are saying shorties are better than longtibes? wow, I can call you stupid now. Or are you saying you should get shorties and tune, so you can be as good as longtubes? either way, you are the one wrong.
And you sure seem like youve never tuned a car, or had it done.
and you say 3" pipe- your credibility just dropped. If you are as smart as you say you are, youd know there is performance LOST on a bolt on 5.0 from 2.5" to 3.0"! again, its called exhaust velocity, and scavenging, and by putting 3" pipe onto a stockish car, you are loosing that scavenging effect.
And you sure seem like youve never tuned a car, or had it done.
and you say 3" pipe- your credibility just dropped. If you are as smart as you say you are, youd know there is performance LOST on a bolt on 5.0 from 2.5" to 3.0"! again, its called exhaust velocity, and scavenging, and by putting 3" pipe onto a stockish car, you are loosing that scavenging effect.
sure you put 3in exhaust on a stock 302, you will lose power, 2.5 would be better, but you stick an h/c/i on there and rev to 6k-6500, then 3in might not be a bad idea, stick a stroker in there and theres no reason not to get longs.
quit all the fighting and bickering, geez. theres a difference between helping with information, and attacking some one to make them look like an idiot.
07-14-2008, 08:07 PM
#27
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
Jakeachy - You are incorrect in some of your assumptions, so do not think you are perfect. Also, please do not attack people with verbal slander.
By the way...
I had a 162k bottomend (1993). This was topped off with AFR 165, OTB Performer Intake, and a custom camshaft, rusted out Mac 1.625" headers (pinched).
I decided to make a few changes, after a couple circumstances. The local track (that I frequent most) is a 1000 ft. track. Best run, off the street was a 10.65 @ 97.98 MPH with the combination above.
Okay, the changes I made were, rebuilding the bottomend (306). I used Probe's 030-10682 pistons (9.6:1 now), with more swept volume that will increase compression. KC did the bottomend.
I also replaced the old rusted short headers, with new BBK Longtubes and a new Offroad H (no dents like my last pipe). I then had Tom Moss port the lower to match the AFR 165cc heads, and he matched them great. Looking down the port, it matched the flange nicely. I even trimmed the gaskets (not done before), cleaned everything as clean as possible as well.
So thesefour changes were made:
- 306 (slightly more compression)
- Longtubes with H-pipe
- Ported lower to match AFR 165
- RP synthetic tranny fluid
After several runs throughout the next year, the best run I could get was 10.56 @ 99.31 MPH.
I kept the same exact timing, fuel pressure, driver weight, tire pressure, etc. I noticed a little more pull about 5300+ RPM, which I attribute to the lower porting by Tom.
A total gain of 1.33 MPH and .09 seconds. So roughly 13.30 HP.
I feel if you are going to get headers from scratch, go for longtubes, but do not believe the hype on how much better they are.
By the way...
I had a 162k bottomend (1993). This was topped off with AFR 165, OTB Performer Intake, and a custom camshaft, rusted out Mac 1.625" headers (pinched).
I decided to make a few changes, after a couple circumstances. The local track (that I frequent most) is a 1000 ft. track. Best run, off the street was a 10.65 @ 97.98 MPH with the combination above.
Okay, the changes I made were, rebuilding the bottomend (306). I used Probe's 030-10682 pistons (9.6:1 now), with more swept volume that will increase compression. KC did the bottomend.
I also replaced the old rusted short headers, with new BBK Longtubes and a new Offroad H (no dents like my last pipe). I then had Tom Moss port the lower to match the AFR 165cc heads, and he matched them great. Looking down the port, it matched the flange nicely. I even trimmed the gaskets (not done before), cleaned everything as clean as possible as well.
So thesefour changes were made:
- 306 (slightly more compression)
- Longtubes with H-pipe
- Ported lower to match AFR 165
- RP synthetic tranny fluid
After several runs throughout the next year, the best run I could get was 10.56 @ 99.31 MPH.
I kept the same exact timing, fuel pressure, driver weight, tire pressure, etc. I noticed a little more pull about 5300+ RPM, which I attribute to the lower porting by Tom.
A total gain of 1.33 MPH and .09 seconds. So roughly 13.30 HP.
I feel if you are going to get headers from scratch, go for longtubes, but do not believe the hype on how much better they are.
07-14-2008, 08:24 PM
#28
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CF,WI
Posts: 970
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
Jakeachy - You are incorrect in some of your assumptions, so do not think you are perfect. Also, please do not attack people with verbal slander.
Jakeachy - You are incorrect in some of your assumptions, so do not think you are perfect. Also, please do not attack people with verbal slander.
07-14-2008, 08:34 PM
#29
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
You can start on why you are comparing two different "cold air INTAKES" to, a short and long tube EXHAUST header.
Also explain to me your "exhaust velocity" theory and why you say it is "backpressure."
Also explain to me your "exhaust velocity" theory and why you say it is "backpressure."
07-14-2008, 08:56 PM
#30
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CF,WI
Posts: 970
RE: Shorties or Longtubes?
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
You can start on why you are comparing two different "cold air INTAKES" to, a short and long tube EXHAUST header.
Also explain to me your "exhaust velocity" theory and why you say it is "backpressure."
You can start on why you are comparing two different "cold air INTAKES" to, a short and long tube EXHAUST header.
Also explain to me your "exhaust velocity" theory and why you say it is "backpressure."
An engine is basically an air machine. More air in and out the better.
Okay, so you have the option of a short ram intake, or a fenderwell intake.
the shortram will enhance upper powerband power, but because it doesnt have a long tube, it will lose some low end grunt.
a long intake will provide great low end torque, but will not perform as well as the sri up top.
now, in essence, the shorty is more like the short ram. It will be great during the powerband, but will shine in theory up top. But it doesnt.
the longtube is the fenderwell, as it provides awesome power throughout. BUT, 5.0s dont rev that high, so the longtube is a safe bet.
And because the manifold is bigger, it will provide a more consistent flow, and a linear EXHUAST VELOCITY compared to the shorty, and thats why it makes more power.
Now, everyone knows that for a naturally aspirated set up, the more exhaust velocity you can get means the more power.
Exhaust velocity is the speed of the exhaust leaving the engine. And the air machine, the more air moved the fastest is the best.
Back pressure is what people of low car knowledge call "restrictive" exhaust systems, and i was alluding to the fact that whats his face was seeming like he thought that. Back pressure for a car is such a beaten to death and one of the biggest myths, its sad that mustang people still think about it..
