I would comment further, but it has become painfully clear I've wasted my time here. Good luck everyone.
You haven'the wasted your time. I am game for the headers but have not heard from TA. I will have to call them.
Gary, great post above (listing the benny's of shorty's). Not re-reading again (and not the best memory...) ; I didn't think anything you said was too far off, and I'll apologize for kind of a set-up question. It wasn't intended like that. After seeing so many "how much hp will hedders add?" and "are they worth the hassle?" posts, it gets frustrating seeing even truthful answers get twisted from lack of understanding. Try a few of the common formulas with real world examples. Look for ones that use "88,200" in there. Short tubes (and intake runners) help high rpms. Long tubes help slower engine speeds. Tri-Y can help both. Zoomie pipes help a narrow rpm "point". Even basic head porting books state that airspeed is far more important than raw CFM's and "flow". Full length tube race headers help at the shift recovery rpm (midrange), where the most time pulling through the powerband is spent. Should be easy now to see that people are misled by a comment like "my headers dyno'd a 15hp gain at 6500 rpm", and are thinking they might not be worth the $$ or hassle for a street vehicle when the torque curve might clearly show a 50-75 lbs./ft gain right where the next gear hits after a shift as well as lower speeds. A basic understanding of how they work would suggest that they are indeed doing their job. (If not, then the wrong header was chosen) Keep in mind that there aren't any standards used for part throttle testing (by the aftermarket and/or hot rod media) and that the most commonly used dyno's cannot hold a decent engine at a low enough rpm to get any relevant data. Data that would clearly be in the useful range of the applications people are asking about. There's a reason motorhome headers are suuuuuuper loooong. (there, that proves it, lol. Argue with Gale banks, he must not know anything either!) :3gears::beer:beer
Well ok you talked me into it. I know that short tubes and collectors aid higher RPM and you need long tuned for best low-mid, but that's where the extra long same size downpipe should help. This isn't to say it will make it all better and even everything out, but it will help. The main advantage of the shorties wasn't that they outperformed full length because we know they won't, but they will fit way better in the compartment and above the ground--and they would certainly be better than the manifolds! Gary
I shouldn't share this but I've found fantastic improvements by using the (inexpensive with other makes) shorties and converting them to 180* firing order tri-Y's...tuned to the exact application. The gift of the shorty's fitment can be preserved via the next branch's 2 pipes following the intended path of the 1 down pipe, or splitting to go around something. Then you actually get an actual scavenging benefit, along with it being ridiculously easy to tune to the chassis' needs or to assist the engine. You would then have the gift of being able to use the header to pull more below peak torque, near converter flash, or any other way you wanted. I'm surprised "the math guy" hasn't played with this one yet. You'll quickly abandon defending so called engineering benefits of factory exhaust systems from the 50's. Do this before the govt. encourages us to burn our books for heat and then pulls the plug on the internet, setting us back another 1000 years.
I enjoy reading your subtle innuendos. The beauty of this ambiguity is you can never be quite certain which angle was intended, though when a modus operendi is discerned, the most likely angle can be predicted with fairly decent accuracy. I'm not talking about the headers, either. When confronted, all it takes is a simple 'I didn't mean it that way' or 'don't take it personal' escape route. Getting back to the headers, I have in fact played with these ideas and different designs of shorties, and have done much of what you already suggest. I have not, however, divulged these details since I am waiting for someone else to make a traditional set of shorties so that the ones I make will be better. lol When did I ever defend the 'engineering benefits' of antiquated exhaust techniques? This is what blows my mind about you guys. You think that just because I try to make what already exists work in a specified environment, that I somehow believe it is THE one and only (and best) way of doing it. I have shown where a simple scavenging merge pipe can transform plain jane manifolds from being complete slugs into something that can work better. It's an improvement, not a world saver. You have to realize that not everyone wants to do everything the same way everyone else does. This is one of the main reasons people choose to build Buicks in the first place! This philosophy also applies to the ways in which you can make things happen for any particular design. It doesn't necessarily make it the best, but it does make it different AND effective. Gary
Cool! That's all I really was trying to encourage. I have no intentions of marketing anything like that, I just start with the donor part as a time saving measure. It's convenient for many reasons. My persistence on header threads is not usually aimed at anyone specific, just a general misunderstanding of how they work, otherwise what's posted wouldn't be posted. Too much talk about flow. Not enough about the very basics of what they do. Lots of myth or irrelevent data. (Not talking about JW's tests, that's valuable to the Buick community) It's not tough to imagine that people see things differently, including results and their interpretation. Isn't that the point of collaboration on the internet? Would you rather I be blunt and say that I completely disagree with a small percentage of what gets posted because it appears to conflict with actual engineering being taught, and that much of the so-called magazine tech of yore has such a tunnel visioned scope that it's fairly useless? Few here are getting paid to share dyno tests and the fruits of their careers, so there's going to be some ambiguity. If anyone is reading into things and seeing slippery directives they are looking a bit too deep.
I spoke with TA. They are definitely interested. I won't state much more on their end. I am just glad that the 350s are getting attention. I need to see if I can undo my manifold bolts though. That is the key. They don't want issues to arise if the manifolds won't unbolt and there be a potential bolt(s) bust and drilling is required. I have never personally taken the manifolds off. I have had the car for over ten years. I am not sure what the previous owner did though. I will try to unbolt the manifolds using some lubricant somewhat soon.
Let that penetrating lube soak a while. If a bolt breaks, don't freak out. Get your hands on a torch and heat it up until it glows, then get some vice-grips and work it back and forth until it comes out. I've never had a bolt I couldn't get out with a torch. I'd like to personally thank you for contributing to the community by offering up your car as a model for the shorty headers. :TU: Gary
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I always enjoy your posts. Your insight and knowledge is incredibly valuable to this community, and I'd like to thank you for sharing what you do. There is so much to learn and enjoy here. Layman's terms or technical jargon, it's all shytz n giggles until someone giggles n shytz, yeah? lol Peace bro
These are one of the 6 sets of headers that were built for the skyhawk. 25 years old at least. Would be nice if the shorty would work in my car. Will most likley have to build a new set.
Curious to see how those clean up from electrolysis or chelation methods (battery chargers or molasses).
It's interesting to note here also that oval mandrel tubing is becoming more available, but is still expensive. A full length set could be made from this with better compartment and ground clearance as an alternative. Something else to note is the collector entrance (on any header) where the pipes merge together would scavenge better with "D" port tubing shape for each tube just prior to entering the collector, much like the 'scavenger series' "Y" pipes do. This isn't anything super new, but is a better design over traditional tubes dumping into a single large collector. There is also the 'venturi' collector design to consider. Sanderson advertises a 'gasket free' design on their primaries, which wouldn't be difficult to duplicate. At the very least, one could improve how long gaskets lasted. Just tossing those thoughts out there. People like to joke and pick about 'overthinking' or 'too much science' behind these designs, but the earth used to be flat with the sun revolving around it and people were killed for questioning the 'official story'. A sure sign of a fool is to dismiss anything outside of their comfort zone as being untrue. Just have to discern which is which in the ocean of information; what's true and false, and the variables in-between. Anything can be custom built with enough resources. The trick here is to make something that works well and can universally fit a much larger number of applications. Gary
I cut the straight collectors off my headers when I went with the stage 2 setup, DIY kit from Cone Engineering 2.125 primaries reduced down to a 2.75 choke with a 3.5 Band outlet went with a 9degree taper cone, its an easy procedure that is proven to make more power and tq pretty much across the entire range. So see even I embrace science,....a little
Disclaimer: (do I even need to say it? Really?) If you do not want to read, then don't. A good read on header size vs power output: http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/148-0404-best-headers-shootout/ Taken from the 'conclusion' section: "As for the smallest of the headers tested, we meant to provide a baseline number but instead netted the best overall power curve for a street/strip vehicle. We feel comfortable concluding that the shortest and smallest tube design held true to our initial theories by promoting as much upper-end horsepower as possible with a short tube while building an impressive amount of torque with a small diameter." These were shorty headers. One would think that 383 CID would be a bit too much for 1 1/2" primary size, but as it turns out the hp didn't go down by much, and the torque soared. Seems there may be something to this small size/velocity 'nonsense' after all. Sure everything needs to be tuned for the parts being used, but it's a good example of what can be done with a 'baseline' comparison. There is no 'trial and error' when facts have already been established--only tuning and tweaking. We know scavenging works. We know smaller tube size means higher velocity. Why then it becomes a subject of ridicule when someone offers up an idea of a scavenging merge pipe being better than divorced pipes is puzzling. Saying it would only give meager improvements shows ignorance of how gasses flow, and indeed how even headers themselves work, and makes one wonder how any such person could call themselves a proper engine tech. This is why science is important, even to those who simply bolt things together. Someone has to come up with all this stuff. Bolting it together is the easy part (yes, I've done that too--not just once or twice or even as a hobby (as many here are engine hobbyists)--but for a living. Working with machines is my passion and life, though admittedly, I have not yet built a spaceship or worked for NASA, so there's still stuff I don't know). Headers merge into a collector, and do better this way than having each tube blowing out into the atmosphere individually. This is the same principle, but it goes against traditional thinking and is therefore immediately rejected by the current paradigm. It's as simple as using one side to help out the other in drawing gasses out and helping them move along. SO much effort has gone into air movement science, all the way from the carb to the exhaust tip and everywhere in-between. It would be unwise to dismiss anything outside the area of your expertise as being 'nonsense', particularly when your choice of words used in sentence structure betray your lack of knowledge or understanding of how it all works. In other words, if you do not understand how it all works, stop saying that it won't and poking fun of anyone who says it will. We're not in 3rd grade anymore. Just because you do not understand something, doesn't mean it's impossible, especially when science shows that it does in fact work. You're only embarrassing yourself. People can do a job, create something, or otherwise do work based on a set of instructions set forth by someone else. It happens every day everywhere. Many people do not even understand (or bother to understand) how or why, just that it works. This applies even to professional engine builders. They're not all the same. The key is in truly understanding what's going on. At first I thought I might be shining some light on something that would help out your average guy, but instead it turns out there are quite a few others who didn't know either. Even though this should not come as any big surprise, I have to admit that it is. This is not technical jargon. It's simple English. Should be easy enough. (sadly, I have to state that this entire post is not aimed at any one particular individual, but to whom it may apply. If the shoe fits though, feel free to lace it on up and wear it) Gary
Gary, Gary, Gary talk about embarrassing oneself and butt hurt much? :eek2: Lets clear a few things up, Most people that know Buick Nailhead engines already know that restricted exhaust produces more torque but limits RPM. Your posts makes in read like you have proof that everyone should run small tube shorty headers when that is far from the case. Restricting the exhaust does do what was written in the sbc article but what they probably left out is how running to restrictive of an exhaust system can cause internal engine damage! It works for the Nailhead because of its small valves, coolant VERY close to the seat and combustion chamber, plus the long small exhaust runners also with coolant cooled IIRC in the head that keeps damage in check. The science is sound but only if you don't want your valves to last very long, restrict your exhaust and they burn up in no time! Mr. Everyone-should-run-a-stock-cam-so-their-valve-train-will-last-longer, is recommending people burn out the valve train by using exhaust that is to restrictive. But in your defense you do recommend the lame stock cam, so it would be hard to restrict the exhaust enough to hurt the engine. With a big cam that wants to make the engine spin will build up so much heat in a QM blast everyone that takes your advice and runs small tube headers with a big cam to trade more low end torque for a couple hundred top end RPM will be paying the price of burnt valves hammered seats or if hardened seats have been installed then burnt hammered valves! Larger headers would help aid in cooling the chamber back down below the melting point of the metal of the valves, not to mention the white hot small tube headers under the hood at the end of the QM! Gary, just because it works on paper doesn't mean its a good idea to put it into service, if it was it would already be more of the norm rather than just scientific theories. Right in your dyno simulator software when you add headers that are to small it should say to "add larger headers or internal engine damage will occur". (well it used to on the older simulators anyway) Maybe you never seen that warning because you only dyno your lame(IMO, just my opinion, its fine that you love it, I don't judge) stock cam on you simulator? o No: Derek
Hadn't skimmed this quarrel yet, but a small diameter exhaust that "helps torque" isn't restricting anything. It's simply using velocity to assist the scavenging that does help VE, which helps torque. Small being a relative term. It's properly sized for the range it runs good in. Please keep in mind that there isn't enough information in magazine articles or basic engine dyno sim programs to be considered useful beyond the exact relationships within those (articles).
