Lot's of opinion, as could be expected....

It IS feasible, it's just that it will require some effort. Look at it this way, we're putting quite a bit of effort into heresay and flame wars on the topic of headers...how about we focus some of that energy on getting cold hard numbers?

As Irish Whiskey mentioned, getting the companies to provide support will be a task. If they opt out, maybe we should take that as a hint to the quality of their product. I agree with him on both points.

boatboatboat: LAPD is unbiased, and there is nothing backdoor going on here. I'm personally in the market for headers and I want to know what I'm buying and contribute to the forum, that's all. LAPD has been serving us well for some time. A while back, they tested Kooks vs LG on a heavily modded car and LG won, even though they sold Kooks. Clearly an unbiased result in that case.

skip89: Price, install ease, and availability will certainly still affect our header choice, but don't you feel as though we're missing a big aspect of the header equation: How much power do they make?

George8211, EB20003: There are a lot of variables, and we can't pretend that anyone will make a test using Z06's, pre-2001, post-2001, cover every tiny variable, etc. What we CAN do is make the first test using a mildly modded (I/E) C5 or stock Z06 and test the systems back-to-back-to-back. I'm a research track student wrapping up my MD, I'm not the type who will let a test be conducted poorly. The hype and BS claims we regularly hear drive me nuts...I intend to remedy that.

Will it be 100% perfect? NO
Will it be FAR better than any previous test? YES

I ask you to show us the most standardized/controlled header comparison to date...there aren't any. This will be a HUGE leap forward in understanding what we're spending our $1500 on.

Corpsvette: I agree 100% that there will be issues where rules need applied. My only motivation is to provide the absolute best test to date, and part of that requires that a majority agree on the rules to make the test valid. We will be certain to have majority opinion dictate anywhere possible. This is not MY test, nor is it LAPD's test, it is OUR test. Issues that may require some forum input:

- Car Used: LAPD has a 2004 stock Z06, which seems fair. It obviously works for the Z06 crowd, and it represents a mildly modded C5 for the rest of us.
- Tuning: that's a tough one which may require discussion, but it seems no tuning will introduce fewer variables than tuning would. We should have the cars driven 50 miles or so before dyno testing to let the computer adapt.
- Cats vs ORP's: Header makers sell more catted versions than offroad versions, so it seems reasonable to use catted systems.
- Midpipe Diameter: LG will obviously be a big contender, and they use 3", so if available, others can use their 3" midsections as well. This was an issue of debate on the previous LG vs Kooks test since it wasn't a 3" Kooks midsection.
- Primaries: Since we're wanting to use a near stock car, 1 3/4 " seems the obvious choice.

Hopefully everyone can see I'm serious about making this work.

 

Let's do it!

 

I will start contacting the header makers soon and will share their thoughts with the forum.

If they try to weasel out, I will let it be known. Same goes for the ones who are up to the challenge, I will let everyone know who is ready to do this.

 

Sounds like a plan! Let's see who steps up to the plate.

 

One other way to approach this, would be to quietly ask Shawn for a cost estimate to conduct such a test and then do an independent test that forum members pay for. Not sure if you could get enough money, but it would take the onus off of the manufacturers.

You may also want to add a few things to weigh for the comparison rather than peak HP. Maybe peak torque, area under the curve, etc.

 

I'd trust LAPD

 

 

BQuicksilver;

When I read your last post, my first impulse was to remark on the myriad reasons why what you are tyring to do won't work. Make no mistake they are numerous. But as my own background is rooted in medical research, rather than be a naysayer I will just offer my opinion. I wish you the best of luck with what you are trying to do.

But if you are looking to buy headers, anytime soon, then IMO, better to go ahead and make your choice based on the information already available to every member on this board. The best advice anyone will give you is go ahead and make a header choice and be happy with it. Do it based on how much money you want to spend, what material you want them made of, and who will be doing the install. There is very likely not a dimes worth of difference between them where it matters. On the track.

If the LGs are what you really want, then why do you need an admittedly imperfect "test" to validate your purchase decision???????

Likewise with the Kooks, the Stainless Works, FLPs, Dynotechs, etc.

Get the one's you want instead of waiting for a "test" that you can point to and say, "Aha!!!!! mine is the "biggest", "longest" etc......"

First, I am assuming that you want to find out which header dynos higher as opposed to which header offers the greatest gains on the strip or the road course. No test will consistently tell you if they are one and the same. If the objective for the car owner is to have the highest dyno nbrs thats one thing, practical performance it goes without saying, may be quite another.

My own case in point. I'm sitting on 323.8 RWHP/339.6 RWTQ. I have Kooks. Would I fear another car with the same mods as mine which made 327RWHP/342.6 RWTQ?????? Not on your life. Would I feel like I had an edge over a car with 320.8RWHP /335.4RWTQ were it lined up next to me???? Again, not on your life. The race would still have to be run, and if I didn't win what would dyno numbers matter????

Its been said before, no one races on a dyno.

It is amazing, the obsession here with big dyno numbers. Even if one member's numbers are only 3-4 RWHP/RWTQ over another member's.

I am also assuming that you wish to use (a) basically stock vehicle(s) as the test subject(s). .

A header which offers 2 or 3 or 4 RWHP/RWTQ over another probably won't offer much in the way of practical improvement for the average weekend racer here. I think it safe to say that there are very few professionals here. Such a small variance could also be within the range of error for any given dynonometer.

The question How much power do they make? is one which can possibly be answered, but one will have to make a determination as to what is statistically significant when it comes to differences.

It is arguable as to whether one can extrapolate the results obtained from a stock Z06 to the typical stock non Z06 C5.

If header A picked up 19 RWHP 21 RWTQ on a Z06, whats this mean to a non Z06 owner? How can you accurately extrapolate the results from an LS6 to an LS1?

A better choice is a basically stock or preferably totally stock low mileage C5. And if possible more than one car.

I agree with all of the above.

Tuning is huge and is where your test will meet most of it's validity problems. The reasons for this are many. In short, in order to be fair, you have to put each header in a reasonable enviorment where it can "succeed". If one is "handcuffed" due to the car's stock tuning, what have you proven???

Some cars like a 12.8:1 A/F ratio. Others like a 13.0:1 A/F ratio . And probably more important than that is , most C5s are said to run rich from the factory. Some undoubtably, come from the factory slightly richer or leaner than others.

You would ideally start from the same A/F ratio in your test, but after the test one could find that the resultant A/F ratio of header A may be richer than the "after install" A/F ratio of header B or C or D.

To begin remedy this, a "post operative" pre determined range of A/F ratios, timing, etc would have to be decided upon and each header's results obtained at those decided upon parameters. But who would decide on an acceptable range????

Absolutely zero tuning is hardly fair in a comparison unless the prospective buyer is never planning on having his car tuned after headers. And even then its not an accurate comparison for reasons already stated.

Headers are arguably a "custom" modification. Many think that they are "off the rack" but this is not true. Todays top header's are custom made and a lot goes into their design. The install is only half the battle to get the maximum benefit. Most will tell you that in order to realize the maximum benefit from a set of headers, you almost have to have "custom" tuning, for your "particular" car......... Now that said, obviously there are some who get headers but no tuning and still get good gains. But, there are some who get headers and get mediocre gains until tuning....... And a third category would be those who get tuning after headers and get minimal gains.

What if header A makes 25 RWHP/25RWTQ with no tuning but makes only 2 or 3 more HP with conservative tuning?

Header B makes 20RWHP/24RWTQ with no tuning and another 10HP/10RWTQ with a conservative tune, which one is better????

Lots of variables. And with so many, the credibility of such a test suffers. Untill one addresses these then your test will IMO not offer us much if any more than what we already have.

This is highly debatable. Someone may want the title "most powerful on the dyno" but I have raced and beaten cars which were "more powerful" and had bigger dyno nbrs than my own."

In the time I have been here, I don't think there has ever been a statement with which I more strongly disagree.

Some of the manufacturers who advertise here, are one step above mom and pop operations. Small businesses if you will. They have been making headers, torque converters, etc for years and have built solid reputations in their niche at tremendous sacrifice. They didn't last this long because they made inferior products. Indeed the people who make my torque converter and headers are family operations.

A header manuracturer's refusal to partake in any test which borders on marginal at best, to outright bogus at worse, simply because some guy across the country can't make up his mind about which headers he wants to buy, is hardly an indication as to the quality of their product.

Indeed, I would be suspicious of a header manufacturer who actually did partake in such a "test", especially if he "won" as there is little for any of the prospective participants to gain and everything for a participant to lose in such a crapshoot. Why bet the house unless you felt" very strongly" that the outcome was a "sure thing"? Why take a risk like that unless you knew something that none of the other manufacturers knew?

 

Oh well, another good idea that probably won't happen because you just can't please everyone.

Not one person has even stepped up yet with equipment and already the results are being disputed.

I'd love to see the comparison. Same car, same tuner, same testing procedures, similar weather, same dyno, same correction factors. There are still many variables left on the table. However, I'd love to be able to sort through the dyno charts myself and evaluate the results. It would be a reasonably fair comparison that I could use to see what I might expect with headers as my first mod. Also, I could use the results to decide for myself if Header A at X dollars is really worth the investment over Header B which may be significantly lower priced.

Besides the performance results, it would nice to hear the installer's comments on fit, finish, quality, ease of installation, and price as tested. It is possible that some MFG's send every little part needed and others make you buy the installation hardware separately.

Now back to your regulary scheduled negative programming.

 

Oh EB,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and if I had a set of headers on my car (which I don't and that is why I am interested in this) that produced a fair gain but someone else put out a better header, I would not change my headers out because of this. That falls under the category of "There is always a car faster than yours somewhere". I don't track so I disagree with you on the track comment and yet agree with you. I feel a dyno gives a standard reading. The track has so many other variables involved. Driver and launch capabilities, intakes (Varraaam will produce more on a track than its competitor will on the dyno.) If someone wants to take the time and test further and go track, then so be it. I am interested in a good system that makes comparable RWHP and TQ but is easy to install, produces all the little nit noid hardware required to install it, fit and finish as mentioned. Again, this would not be science but based on the findings of LAPD for all around fit, finish and performance, I would be happy. Take the FLP's for instance. I have been looking at these. No one has any data. There have been a few reports of rust but are easy to install and easy to switch between ORP and Cats. If the ceramic chipping problem is cured, I would give up a few ponies for the rest of it. Everyone would still have their own freewill to decided which header is best for their needs. I don't think this test would declare A BEST HEADER. I just read a post on how low the headers hang below the rocker panels. That is important for lowered cars and so maybe they would pick the lowest HP producing headers for one that tucks up better. Oh, one more control to the original post, its gotta run off 91 octane for us Cali folks. I hope this goes. I am very interested.

Jim K.