New Headers available

[Chips]

6 hours ago, IrritableVet said:

Defouler

Thanks. 

[f8l vnm]

No Dyno numbers to back up products is shady IMO. And i also agree Kooks makes good stuff. 

You would need a tune to feel anything and then what about Cats? If you have a blower truck and dont mind the money why not but for a NA application its just not very good way to spend money . Heck i would rather spend money on some 3.73 if i was to spend 1500 ..just my opinion 

Edited September 9, 2020 by f8l vnm

[aliveguy5]

The dyno graph on the shorties shows exactly what they do... Take from the low end and move it to the high end. Know that if you put shorties in your truck you will likely lose some low end torque. Long Tubes have always been the kind of under the curve power with the most low end gains. You pay heavily for them though!

[Grumpy Bear]

You do realize that the entire graph is a WOT, right? 

More than 90% of an street motors time is spent under 30%

Collect your own data to confirm

 

 

ICE's (internal combustion engines) are 'demand' devices.

Until you're asking more from the motor than the original configuration could have supplied your headers are doing nothing.

 

 

[Gangly]

22 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

You do realize that the entire graph is a WOT, right? 

More than 90% of an street motors time is spent under 30%

Collect your own data to confirm

 

 

ICE's (internal combustion engines) are 'demand' devices.

Until you're asking more from the motor than the original configuration could have supplied your headers are doing nothing.

 

 

The dynograph was taken at WOT, but that doesn't mean the values obtained from the data in the lower RPM range aren't applicable.  When you are towing, looking to pass another driver, or simply accelerating for the sure enjoyment of it, you are running your motor through those same RPM's, whether at WOT or not.  If the graph is an accurate representation (net) which I doubt, you have an approximate 20 hp (+/-a few) and ~15 ft/lbs of torque gains from ~3,000 RPM's and up, which is where your vehicle spends nearly 100% of its time when accelerating.

 

To say "Until you're asking more from the motor than the original configuration could have supplied, your headers are doing nothing" is an obvious point irrelevant to this topic.  People wouldn't be adding engine modifications to their vehicles if they felt that the original configuration of the engine was adequate for their needs/wants.

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, Gangly said:

To say "Until you're asking more from the motor than the original configuration could have supplied, your headers are doing nothing" is an obvious point irrelevant to this topic.  

Couldn't be more relevant. Those lower numbers are also at WOT. To get that 'additional' power you actually have to ask for it with the loud pedal. If it made power based only on rpm then you could not control it with that pedal under your right foot. 

 

If you pulling a grade towing X mass and holding a steady 60 mph and the physics says that takes, oh lets say 300 lbs/ft torque then headers, blower or not,  it's what the motor will produce. Not one foot pound more or less. If it did then son, it would be accelerating or decelerating. If your speed is steady the the RPM is fixed for that gear. If the torque and rpm is steady then it's making the same ground hp. If you don't understand this then I don't know what to tell you. It's why the pedal is there, to modulate torque. 

 

HP = (torque X RPM) / 5252 

 

No matter how much MORE toque you have available given the same road speed and gear you will THROTTLE the excess to get right back to the amount required. 

 

Argue the correct argument for your case if you want to argue it. What case would that be? Accelerating that mass to a higher rate of velocity. But again unless your asking for more that the original to result is still the same. 

 

A = FA. 

 

A two lane pass for example, from 55 mph to 70 mph in a 5,500 pound truck

 

Energy at 55 mph = .0336 * 5500 * (70)squared =  905,520 foot pounds

Energy at 70 mph = .0336 * 5500 * (55) squared = 559,020 foot pounds

 

The difference is 346,500 pounds force.

 

550 foot pound/sec is one horsepower.  So let use the peaks from the graph. That is being VERY generous. 

 

277 hp * 550 = 152,350 then 346,500 / 152,350 = 2.27 seconds. (headers)

262 hp * 550 = 144,100 then 346,500 / 144,100 = 2.40 seconds ( Stock )

 

So if flat out WOT both times this pass takes 0.13 seconds less.

 

It will actually be way less than this as the rolling resistance  and aero-drag was not taken into consideration that would consume a good deal of that additional power. 

 

 

How much is that system? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chips]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

How much is that system? 

 

 

Your post was too long to quote.

people will argue against the noticeable gains from any upgrade.  Most have an agenda , whether it be because they are afraid to do something, they are a brand lover and feel the truck was made from Nasa scientists and cant be any more properly  designed or maybe they just are budget conscious and hate on the people spending a modest amount of money on their ride.

 

either way you are fairly ill informed , these engines benefit from headers, always have. Ive had headers on multiple LS engines all with big gains. If there wasnt any gains I wouldnt have done it a second or 3rd time. They made an insane amount of header options for LS for a reason.

 

im not calling you out , but throwing random numbers out their and theories does not equate to real world , if you dont think its worth pursuing thats fine and dandy. But to kinda witch hunt against it is silly, anyone who understands motors understands the purpose and application of exhaust . 

To say you lose power down low is also funny, who the heck is looking for power below 2500 rpm? Ive never seen someone concerned about power at such low rpm. 

 

Regardless of your stance the chart shows noticeable and desireable results.

Ive been happy with my previous model year trucks with headers installed, all put a smile on my face and I felt was the best upgrade I made on those vehicles.

 

Ive had buddies with the same truck drive mine and they all noticed the difference between our trucks.

 

i dont see how these 2020 with the same motors wont have the same results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Chips

[Gangly]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Couldn't be more irrelevant. 

FIFY

 

Again, 

"People wouldn't be adding engine modifications to their vehicles if they felt that the original configuration of the engine was adequate for their needs/wants."

 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, Chips said:

either way you are fairly ill informed ,

My education is quite complete. Your argument is with God and Newton, not with me. He made the laws that govern the universe. Sir Issac Newton gave us the math to understand his works.

Your argument is ignorant and with them, not me.

 

Find yourself an eight grade science teacher and have him explain it to you.

 

You are correct. I have an agenda.

 

The truth. 

 

2 hours ago, Chips said:

im not calling you out , but throwing random numbers out their and theories does not equate to real world ,

Yea, ya kind' a are. 

But that's fine, no offence taken.

 

There is nothing random about those numbers. Those are real weights. Real HP figures from the dyno results submitted on page 2 and in a real world passing situation. Math isn't a theory. It's how people put people the moon and a sniper puts dot in your eye at a thousand yards. There is no theory of time or a quarter mile or velocity. What school did you graduate from? 

To unseat my statement you will have to attack the math. 

Good luck with that.

 

I showed it made a difference. Just not one worth it's asking price. 

Problem is, your not happy with the truth. 

Not sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

53 minutes ago, Gangly said:

FIFY

 

Again, 

"People wouldn't be adding engine modifications to their vehicles if they felt that the original configuration of the engine was adequate for their needs/wants."

 

That actually may be true. They may very well be dissatisfied. That won't change the physics, the math or the truth.

 

People spend dumb money every day. Done it a few times myself. 

 

If you thing the asking price is worth 1/3 the blink of an eye in performance....

 then have at 

 

Let me give you a solid point of reference.

The gain was 0.13 seconds.

The average blink of the eye is 0.333 seconds.

How much was that system again?

 

The average scatter in time slips in a 14 second ride is more than this gain.

Are you going to tell me you can lay down a half dozen passes within a tenth of a second?

 

 

[Chips]

8 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

My education is quite complete. Your argument is with God and Newton, not with me. He made the laws that govern the universe. Sir Issac Newton gave us the math to understand his works.

Your argument is ignorant and with them, not me.

 

Find yourself an eight grade science teacher and have him explain it to you.

 

You are correct. I have an agenda.

 

The truth. 

 

Yea, ya kind' a are. 

But that's fine, no offence taken.

 

There is nothing random about those numbers. Those are real weights. Real HP figures from the dyno results submitted on page 2 and in a real world passing situation. Math isn't a theory. It's how people put people the moon and a sniper puts dot in your eye at a thousand yards. There is no theory of time or a quarter mile or velocity. What school did you graduate from? 

To unseat my statement you will have to attack the math. 

 

Good luck with that.

 

I showed it made a difference. Just not one worth it's asking price. 

Problem is, your not happy with the truth. 

Not sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahahha .

 

good talk.

the fact you throw insults shows how invalid your argument is.

 

Your opinion of noticeable vs others is subjective. Until you actually do something you wont know if its noticeable or not. Im saying the best bang for your buck is headers , you can get headers for these trucks fairly inexpensive, if you want the kooks full ultra green kit its going to cost you, they are an option for those who do not want a tune to bypass the downstream o2 sensor.

 

most people arent putting headers on to get a better quarter mile time at the track . 

 

You come off sounding pretentious. My job revolves entirely around math and calculations,  I already broke your argument As it was based off your opinion and you are just showboating your calculations thinking you impressed anyone .

 

You didnt , its subjective , you have an opinion. Not the truth. We see what your OPINION is , not what the Truth is. Please stop passing yourself off as god you dont know everything and it shows in this thread.

 

my argument isnt with you or “god” . Relax captain. 
 

good day sir 

[calgator73]

18 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

You do realize that the entire graph is a WOT, right? 

More than 90% of an street motors time is spent under 30%

Collect your own data to confirm

 

 

ICE's (internal combustion engines) are 'demand' devices.

Until you're asking more from the motor than the original configuration could have supplied your headers are doing nothing.

 

 

I believe you're correct regarding engines being demand devices. 

 

Doesn't making more power at a given rpm allow you to run at a lower rpm to achieve the same output being requested? 

 

Assuming it is not WOT (stoich and lean burn doesn't matter then?), would this make the difference between running 10th up a grade vs 8th or 9th using cruise? (Assuming gm doesn't limit torque in those gears and is instead focused on maintaining speed)

 

My expectation would be a transmission that can hold a higher gear longer (better fuel efficiency?), desired sound quality and maybe some minor increases in peak power.

[Grumpy Bear]

18 minutes ago, calgator73 said:

I believe you're correct regarding engines being demand devices. 

 

Doesn't making more power at a given rpm allow you to run at a lower rpm to achieve the same output being requested? 

 

Assuming it is not WOT (stoich and lean burn doesn't matter then?), would this make the difference between running 10th up a grade vs 8th or 9th using cruise? (Assuming gm doesn't limit torque in those gears and is instead focused on maintaining speed)

 

My expectation would be a transmission that can hold a higher gear longer (better fuel efficiency?), desired sound quality and maybe some minor increases in peak power.

Remember torque is work and hp is the rate of work or how fast that work get done. Simply pulling a load up a hill at a steady rate of speed if based completely on the torque available at that speed thus at that gearing. So the question isn't asking about flywheel torque but wheel torque, right? To do so in a higher gear reduces the wheel torque in this way.....

 

 

Lets use an example and pretend for sake of simplicity that dyno chart is flywheel and the transmission is a manual with the gearing of the 6L80E.  Tire 670 rev/min, 3.73 gear, 4th gear ratio is 1.15:1. At 70 mph the rpm is 3353 rpm (stock motor). In fifth gear which is 0.85:1 the rpm would be 2478 rpm (headers).  Now lets go to the torque line of the stock motor and see what torque was available. Roughly 225 pounds feet. The modified motor at 2478 rpm is making but 180 pounds feet. 

 

Stock then 225 * 1.15 * 3.73 = 962 torque

Modified    180 * 0.85 * 3.73 =  570 torque

 

Do you see the problem? The headers are not helping in the rpm you're working in until the gear gets really steep or the speed really high. Over 70 mph? (look at the dyno chart)

 

Let's not give up. Let say we stay in the same gear and shift down the third (1.53:1) We are going to use 64 mph this time so we can pin point torque on the graph to the numbers quoted just over 4,000 rpm. 

 

Stock        278.85 * 1.53 * 3.73 = 1591 torque

Modified  290.27 * 1.53 * 3.73 = 1656 torque

 

+ 65 pounds feet is the difference. Cool! No lets translate that to work.

 

5500 * .0336 * (64)2 = 756,941 so let's add 65 pounds feet to the energy balance and see how much more weight that is?

(756,941 + 65) / (64)2 / .0336 = 5500.47 pounds. Less than half a pound. 

 

This is what tractor/truck pulls is all about. That last half pound that brings her to a stop. 

 

I hope the point made is that unless your pulling in second gear at WOT a 11.42 pound feet torque increase isn't large enough to crack that nut even if you had a hundred gears to choose from. 

 

At the price of these headers you could re-gear it or change converters or both maybe and get a real result. 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

2 hours ago, Chips said:

 I already broke your argument .................

 

All you've broke is wind.

[KARNUT]

In my years of pulling my equipment I was able to test performance improvements with each change I made. I generally would travel the same roads and was able to see each improvement as they were made. The goal was to maintain a set mph without downshifting. I was always hauling heavy. Headers, opening the exhaust and intake always enable me to stay in a higher gear longer when installed at lower RPMs. My none pulling vehicles including cars at cruising speeds showed increase fuel mileage and quicker ets at the track. In the lower HP vehicles it took less throttle input to reach desired speeds. Lower RPM shifts to feel the sensation of speed. As far as cost vs improvements that depends on length of use. My last header eq truck had expensive headers that are still going strong after 12 years I owned the truck. Funny to me is one person arguing against these headers trying to show their logic. Happens to be the same person who spent thousands on his ride to make it ride like a car. Only proving that everyone has their own ideas on what is foolish and what is an improvement. As it should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk