Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 73

Thread: Manfold/Header testing complete.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532

    Manfold/Header testing complete.

    After initiating this test it quickly became apparent that I needed to establish some testing standards and parameters to prevent skewing results and getting innaccurate results so that is why I had to re-do the test. The results have changed.

    I realized in the first test that each port wasn't flowing the same in each manifold and I became concerned about exit angles for each tube and possible turbulence in the collectors. This led me to do two things.

    1) I added a pipe extension to all collectors. The longtube Kooks already have an 8.5" x 3" collector on them so I extended that slightly to a total of 14" and I used that length on all tests. The other headers all have 2.25" oulets so I used a 2.5" extension on those and the manifolds (and 96 Bird header) all have < 2" outlets so I attached a 2.25" extension on them. I then tested the Kooks longtubes with a 2.5" reducer and tried the 95 Mustang header with both 2.25 and 2.5" pipes. In each case the flow difference at full lift was just .5cfm. Now is also the time to point out that in EVERY case adding the 14" extension improved flow!

    2) I tested each pipe in each manifold. I blocked off the remaining 2 pipes when testing each one and the results are noted below. Some manifolds/headers definitely have better balance than others.

    The results include flow at all points from .100-.450" lift on a totally stock cylinder head and are compared to a straight diffuser for a baseline. All tests were conducted consecutively on the same day for the sake of consistency. I also included the % variation between all ports and the gain or loss relative to the straight diffuser. This first test was embarked on specifically to show what flow advantage there might or might not be for each manifold/header on a stock engine.

    I hope you find these results helpful. I will be performing tests on ported stock manifolds also but that will have to wait as I do not have the porting done at this point. I will update the test when I have that data.

    I will also be doing another test on a fully ported set of heads at lifts up to .600" to give a better perspective of what potential these manifolds/headers have.
    Last edited by XR7 Dave; 12-27-2006 at 10:13 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532
    Official results are attached.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    5,902
    Nice work Dave.

    I see our stock manifolds flow slightly more than the 96 style, but look at how unbalanced they are. The 95 one seems to be a good choice. What was different about the 95 manifold?

    I see the longtubes flow the most, that was expected. The mid lengths and mac's are very close in average and are pretty equal for each primary.

    Going from stock un ported early style manifolds to a set of Kooks longtubes would gain an average of 13.5 cfm per cylinder, but at $700 is it worth it, and does 13.5 cfm make any power increase?

    Looking forward to seeing what the ported SC manifolds can do as it is the common theory they are good to around 300 rwhp maybe more.
    Scott Long
    1992 SC 5-speed
    Black on black leather, lowered, 18x9 Chrome Saleens...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532
    I was pleased and surprised to see that the longtubes were the best flowing of the bunch and actually improved over a straight diffuser. To me that was impressive. The Kooks longtube has a nice evenly configured collector which I feel is a significant factor in the good results. The Kooks that I have contain an 02 sensor in one primary lead and it was this tube that had the lower flow #'s compared to the rest. I did not test it with the 02 out (it's not coming out either) so I can't verify that but that's what it looked like to me.

    The mid length Kooks also performed well and I was impressed with the consistency port to port. It may not result in a performance enhancement on an otherwise stock SC but it seems like a good part nonetheless.

    The MAC shows what happens when you try to stuff a header where a header doesn't fit. The longer tube had more bends and suffered due partly to it's poor entry angle into the collector. The middle tube was a little better because it dumps at a better angle into the cramped collector and #3 lead the charge because it is extremely short and also dumps straight out the collector. In this case you can clearly see how a very short and direct tube can outflow a better designed but longer tube. The MAC concerns me because of the variation between ports although it is clearly better than a stock manifold.

    The 95 Mustang header did better with an extension on it but clearly it doesn't keep up with the rest. Why? Because the tubes are jammed up at the collector. They just don't have enough cross sectional area at the point where they join the collector. It's like 3 little venturies there. It should be noted that it is very consistent though which has value compared to the MAC, Bird Header, and the 89 stock manifold.

    The 96 Bird header in this test was ported lightly so the results are most likely somewhat better than a stock untouched header would have been. I expect that this one will look much worse once we get some real flow going through the head but for now the results are not THAT bad. For a stock motor it may be a decent improvement over a stock 89 manifold due to it's improved consistency.

    The 89 manifold surprised me. I always wondered why Ford changed the manifold in 94 and now I know. The center port is severely handicapped to the point of possibly causing a real issue. With over 17% difference between it and the front port it is very unbalanced. If you look closely at the design you will see that the center port must make 2 almost 90 degree turns before exiting into the rest of the exhaust. Obviously this is a bad condition.

    The 95 SC manifold rocks. I can't believe this thing. It looks ugly enough but obviously someone at Ford was burning the midnight oil to get this one right. Performance was on par with the headers and consistency was better than the MAC shortie. Who would have guessed?

    So, in this test the results are as follows.....

    #1 - Kooks Longtubes
    #2 - MAC Shortie
    #3 - Kooks Mid Length
    #4 - 95 SC Manifold (unported)
    #5 - 89 SC Manifold (unported)
    #6 - 96 Tbird Header (ported)
    #7 - 95 Mustang Header

    More to come.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    5,902
    I'm willing to bet a ported 95 manifold would outflow the Kooks mid length and the MAC at stock lift levels. With more lift, I'm not so sure as of right now.

    Are you going to test the ported manifolds on the stock and modified head with both stock and higher lift?
    Scott Long
    1992 SC 5-speed
    Black on black leather, lowered, 18x9 Chrome Saleens...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Clayton, CA
    Posts
    57

    Thanks for sharing

    Thanks Dave,

    Very cool of you to

    a. do the testing

    b.share the results

    I'm also impressed with your attn to detail

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    1,707
    Thanks for going through all the trouble of testing and sharing the results! Looking forward to seeing how a set of ported stockers stack up...
    SCCoA Member# 1786,
    1990 SC, AOD, 193k, Twilight Blue, bought in 1994, 1.7 AR tuned by Dave Dalke
    1994 SC, 4R70W, 139k, Teal Metallic, bought in 2014
    2014/2016 Carlisle 1st Place Winner, 94-95 SCs
    2014 Carlisle SCCOA Doug Fraleigh Best of Show Modified Trophy


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    8,159
    Me too......

    I have a set of stock 89 manifolds that I just got finished porting and are ready for installation.....

    It looks like I might have to go find a set of 95s and port them.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532
    I couldn't help myself and started on phase II before spending any time porting any manifolds. For one thing I need to get the loaner headers back to their owners and second I have to complete some other work before I start porting exhaust manifolds. Some of you know what I'm talking about. I'll do the manifolds later but you are not going to BELIEVE what I saw when moving up to a better flowing head and higher lift.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532
    What, 65 views and only three people have any comments about the test results?

    Maybe I'll just send out an email with the final results.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    17,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Long View Post
    I see our stock manifolds flow slightly more than the 96 style, but look at how unbalanced they are. The 95 one seems to be a good choice. What was different about the 95 manifold?
    The center port on the 89 manifold on the passenger side in particular has some very poor exit angles and then the front port has no restriction at all and badly outflows it's neighbor. The 95 manifold adds some direction to the middle port and smooths the transition into the collector as well as changes the outlet angle of the collector. Then the 95 manifold also crimps the front port slightly. Whether this is done to limit front port flow or if it is done to minimize backflow between the two I can't say but it seems to work.

    I see the longtubes flow the most, that was expected. The mid lengths and mac's are very close in average and are pretty equal for each primary.
    I did not expect the longtubes to outflow the rest. I thought that the longer tubes would form a restriction of sorts but I was clearly wrong. The length of the tubes does not seem to have any bearing on flow. The key is collector design. On the MAC headers one tube has an awkward approach angle to the collector and that port is significantly down in flow compared to the other two. Where it not for that issue the MAC would outperform the Kooks mid length. I don't see how you can fix that issue so if you use those you'll just have to accept that.
    Going from stock un ported early style manifolds to a set of Kooks longtubes would gain an average of 13.5 cfm per cylinder, but at $700 is it worth it, and does 13.5 cfm make any power increase?
    Therein lies the basis for all the claims of stock manifolds making as much power as headers. You have to look closely at the individual port flow numbers to see what is happening. With a stock manifold some ports are flowing darn near as much as a header where as other ports are lagging far behind. The average may be close, but each cylinder does not look at averages. So you have some cylinders pulling well and other cylinders having issues. Could this lead to detonation in some cylinders more than others? Many questions, not many answers.
    Looking forward to seeing what the ported SC manifolds can do as it is the common theory they are good to around 300 rwhp maybe more.
    Ported manifolds have supported over 400rwhp, not 300rwhp. Was it efficient? I don't think so. But the truth remains that Jim Oneil made 390rwhp through stock unported manifolds, Bill McNeil made 380rwhp through ported manifolds, I made 425rwhp with ported manifolds.... And the list goes on. How much power would longtube headers provided over those manifolds? The answer is inconclusive.

    One thing is very clear. The use of Mustang headers is a big mistake if you want to make power. Anyone who has them on their car might as well start making other plans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller View Post
    Ya thats why i tape mine down. People think its bc i dont have a moonroof seal (which is true) but its really to keep my roof from ripping off .
    Email me here.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    43

    Talking

    Hey Dave,
    Thanks for doing this test. I always wonder what would work the best and for the money, especially the cost of the kooks headers. Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and buy those over price headers.

    David

    (p.s If you decide to email the results, I be interested)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Lakeville, MN
    Posts
    13,517
    Quote Originally Posted by XR7 Dave View Post
    ...
    Some of you know what I'm talking about.
    ...
    What, 65 views and only three people have any comments about the test results?
    Just trying not to distract you too much is all.

    Let's start with some reality checks. Perhaps avg hp found on cars with each exhaust manifold. I.e. do we see a block occuring. Or if we work back from exhaust flow, to hit that cfm of exhaust flow, how much fuel and air is combusted in the chamber for a standard 3.8liter bore and stroke? Then is this what we are even capable of creating with our current intake capabilities? Say we have a 8.5:1 compression ratio with 12.5psi of boost at 4000rpm. Could we figure a needed flow from that input?

    That the long tubes are proving better is very interesting. As we try to make our engines reliable at higher HP levels, cylinder balancing will be important. I.e. are we pushing that much fuel just because one cylinder is leaning out? Or is one cylinder on the ragged edge but it's not showing up in the wide band o2 sensor at the tailpipe?

    So I guess I need to become familiar with we need going out for what we put in to be able to better place things on the priority list.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by XR7 Dave
    What, 65 views and only three people have any comments about the test results?
    Nice WORD doc there Dave... your hidden macro opened up my Mastercard account and sent $40 to "Super Coupes Unlimited"













    Just kidding...

    -----------------

    Obviously, next to true headers, OE manifolds appear to be the next best choice. I look forward to seeing the results after porting

    With regard to the middle runner, and knowing what we know now, perhaps a little extra porting to that one would help (I know there's not much material to work with, but every little bit could help).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by XR7 Dave View Post
    The center port on the 89 manifold on the passenger side in particular has some very poor exit angles and then the front port has no restriction at all and badly outflows it's neighbor. The 95 manifold adds some direction to the middle port and smooths the transition into the collector as well as changes the outlet angle of the collector. Then the 95 manifold also crimps the front port slightly. Whether this is done to limit front port flow or if it is done to minimize backflow between the two I can't say but it seems to work.
    This brings another thought to my mind. The last two 3.8's with Blown head gaskets Ive seen were between the passanger side last two cylinders, and Ive heard of others blown in the same place. Im wondering if it might have anything to do with the exhaust manifold.

    - Dan

Similar Threads

  1. M90 Blower testing proposal:
    By XR7 Dave in forum Non Technical Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-09-2005, 08:18 PM
  2. 90 SC Engine and trans complete plus misc.
    By 31A-HotRod in forum Parts for Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-13-2005, 11:01 PM
  3. Complete Valve Job! Info Needed...
    By darkstar_one in forum Technical Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-15-2005, 01:52 PM
  4. For sale: Complete pumpkin with 3.73 gears
    By Wayne Ing in forum Super Coupe Club of Ontario
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2004, 10:04 PM
  5. Phase 1 complete..
    By 91 XR7 in forum Super Coupe Club of Western Canada
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-25-2002, 04:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •