RStevens63

I stand corrected, my apologies to Evosport for my inability to read lol, I didn't catch the overall 63 part I was referring to C63s specifically. I was going off of MHP designing their C63 headers in late '08.

Thanks for the heads up!

RStevens63

Also wanted to say that I agree with both MBH and Evosport in that the lack of volume alone justifies the difference in cost vs a domestic set of headers. Take the Mustang GT market and reduce it by 99.5% and see what their headers sell for--this is assuming equal quality which is a different discussion in and of itself. If you wanna play, you gotta pay.

MBH motorsports

I think you have to take into the consideration where an F1 engine is. If they had to dump the exhaust out under the car like NASCAR does, it might be a different story when they design their headers. Most F1 headers are very short so there is no real length to get 3 Y's in there. IMHO, If I was designing an F1 header, Id do a 4 into 1 as well.

Hypothetically, if no one cared about looks and there was no laws as to what you did with your exhaust.. We would all be running zoomies.

Here is a look at some professional header systems on a wide range of race cars...
Champ car 4-1 turbo or something lol


Indy IRL 4-1


NASCAR tri-y


You kind of have to ask yourself. "what system best reflects what my motor is?" Is it 18,000 RPM F1 motor? As much as we would all love that... Its not. "Is it a turbo engine?" We wish it was though. "Or is closer to a 358ci 8500-9000 RPM NASCAR motor?" Just some food for thought and keeping this topic I love so much fun.

cayenne_ksa

here is some for cargraphic

http://www.flickr.com/photos/by_desi...7625514653166/

TexasEngineer

Brad,

Yes, many nascar teams use tri y headers. I did over look this. From what I can tell from reading up on the subject, is that all the gains from tri y headers come in the very upper rpm range. Also, I completely disagree with you assertion that nascars are not tuned for a narrow rpm band. They are not road course racers, and they are a joke when they try to be. Nascars spend most of their time in the 8k to 9k rpm range. Our cars do not. Well, at least mine will never. I have even read some info about tri y designs hurting low to mid range torque.

Are you inferring that the headers I reference are made of cheep stainless steel? I would invite everyone to research Kooks headers, and American Racing headers. They make top notch stuff out of top notch materials, and it is half the price over everything for the C63.

You keep talking about quality of materials. Please share the specifications of the materials of your headers, thickness, grade, and dimensions.

Please share some of the results of this extensive research you have completed. How in the world does a relatively minor change in the exhaust affect drivability or compatibility? Please share.

If you can’t share any of this info, how are we supposed to compare your headers with the other? How are we to know that any of this is true?

About the CTSV headers, what on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned taking a CTSV header and making it work for our car. I do bet that the companies (Kooks and American Racing Headers) that make headers for the CTSV could make similar header setups for the C63 at half the cost of what is available though. But this is a short cut? What????? Building on decades of knowledge to design and build a header for a new car is a short cut? Wow, ok. Your statement is difficult to understand and somewhat unintelligible.

Congratulations on being the first header in the 63 market. I don’t see how that has any relevance.

Don’t get me wrong. The headers you sell are very nice, and seem well constructed. It even looks like you went to some effort of making the primary tubes equal length. This is very commendable, but perfectly “tuned headers” are more expensive as you mentioned and the gains over less equal length designs can be minimal. I just disagree on the tri y design. Oh and the lack of a one piece flange. From what I have seen, they seal better. With all that R&D and $$$ you think would include a one piece flange. Also, I think we all know my opinion on your price.

TexasEngineer

1. You said the tri y is much better above 3K. How much better? Where is the dyno proof? You admit that the 4-1 had more torque. What do you mean the car didn’t like it? Do you mean you didn’t like it?
2. To me a 5-8 hp difference at the top of the RPM is not worth a loss is torque especially if you have to pay a lot more for it. Maybe to someone else it is.
3. Smoother? More progressive? What? What does this mean? Are you talking about sound? By the way I didn’t buy the C63 to make smooth, progressive sounds.
4. So a car that was designed with a log manifold all of the sudden has sever issues over a 4-1 merge collector. Why has no one else run into this problem with a 4-1 design? Perhaps because they are not related.

Honestly your answers were not very helpful. I am not trying to be rude, just honest.

TexasEngineer

Hooleyboy,

Allow me to retort to your retort. I already posted about the nascar issue, so I will move on from that.

I believe your claims that the merge collector being located just before or after the final bend has a minimal difference especially on the M113.

I would hardly call the CTSV, Corvette, and Viper world the old school muscle world, and I would hardly call Kooks Custom headers and American Racing headers extreme mass production.
The headers I reference are stainless steel.
T304 stainless steel to be exact.
Read their websites. They are made in the USA, hence the “American” Racing headers.
Yes there are some cheep mild steel headers available on the market for camaros and mustangs, but these are in the $300 to $800 range. This is not what I am talking about.

You mentioned “thin” stainless steel. I had no idea that the boat anchor mod was in style, and that thicker heavier material is always better. Are your headers supposed to act as rock shields? By the way, what is the wall thickness of your primaries?

Your comments about turbo headers have no relevance in the N/A world. The stresses that turbo headers go through are incomparable to N/A headers. Are you saying that your C63 headers are so over built that they could act as turbo headers? Don’t you think that is over doing it? I surely don’t want to pay extra for a header that will work in a turbo application. I am not going to turbo my car. Why would you make them heavier than they need to be? Why wouldn’t you build them to the requirements of the application?

Also, why do your primaries seem so abruptly short? What benefit does this provide?

Why on earth did you go with 2” primaries? This seems extremely excessive. Most of the highly tuned 7.0L LS7s I have seen are running 1 7/8” primaries because they did not gain anything substantial from the 2” primaries. They also lose low to mid range torque. Keep in mind the LS7 also revs to 7200 rpm like the M156. Most of the 2” primaries I have seen in the V8 world are on very, very high horse power drag racing engines, and on some custom turbo applications. 2” primaries seem very out of place on the M156. Please enlighten us as to why you choose to go with 2” primaries.

superlubricity

Tex, thanks again for contributing with data. You touched on a few of the same points I've made.

Note to all: Let's keep this a technically-oriented thread free of emotion and/or personal attacks. We haven't crossed that line "yet" but I know this forum.

Data-driven discussion and argument is welcome. In fact, we need more of it!

RStevens63

I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying, are you saying we'd just run mufflers?

The M156 is none of the above and I'm sticking to my guns on the 4 into 1 > Tri-Ys

MBH motorsports

This thread is meant to be more informative than anything. So I'd rather keep it that way. Sticking with that thought. I don't want to debate anymore price points or what not. Lets just leave the debate at this.. Don't knock it until you try it. I respect most peoples stance and its very cool people are enjoying what they run. In the end thats what its all about. If someone has a tech question and I feel I have a meaningful answer. I will be more than happy to share what I've learned in this header journey. Not everyone is going to agree on everything so lets just stick to the data that will make for one Hell of an informative thread.

87C63

As I can see they are under the section LTH.
You tell me this is new for me.

superlubricity

They are a full-length header but they are not a long-tube header. There are definitions of each term in the first post to help reduce confusion.

_AMG_

Is there any videos of the Fluid Motor Union headers? or any dyno results?
They look like they would make alot of bottom end torque and top end power.

RStevens63

What are you basing those assumptions off of? Do you build headers?

The comment about time spent in fabrication is also off, and I would again ask the same question, on what knowledge are you basing these comments off of?

Frankly no one but MHP knows how long it takes to make a set of their headers, same goes for Evosport and MBH. Watching people throw darts on a forum trying to guess helps no one.

This is how misinformation is created and spread and how informative threads go from being helpful to becoming detrimental.

TexasEngineer

Really? Other than the shorty headers and logs, I would say the FMU design is probably the worst. The look like a bunch of cut up pre-bent tubing. I would also guess that many of the cuts are not parallel either and that the pieces are mitered to fit. Also the collectors aren’t even collectors they are just cut up pre-bent tubing. Out of all the mid to full length headers available, I would expect the FMU headers to make the least gains across the entire rpm range. Does anyone know the primary diameter? Has anyone seen any dyno results?

Sincity

I wonder when Kleemann will release their LTs?

RStevens63

Anyone have pics of these yet? Wonder what design they went with?

Thanks!

MBH motorsports

Jack Burns is the founder of Burns Stainless.

[IMG][/IMG]

superlubricity

Thanks for sharing. A good read when discussing long-tube headers and the relationship between the primary and secondary tubes.

Asked before and unanswered (Post #59): Why did you decide on such short-primary tubes vs. long-primary tubes like the evosport headers?

MBH motorsports

Because of the port size on the head. If you have a whole header with two inch pipe It might be over kill. meaning if you made it out of 2" in a 4-1 style. Then you get into the a whole other topic of volumetric efficiency. We designed the header the way we did for a reason.

TexasEngineer

Here is a technical write-up that I found informative.

Quote:

Header Basics by Loren Barnes, President, S&S Headers, Inc.

You have probably heard words like: back pressure, scavenging, tuned length, merged collector, rotational firing order, compatible combination and many others that meant something, but how they relate to a header may be a little vague. This article should give you a basic understanding of how a header works, what the terminology means, and how it plays a part in the header's performance gains.

The first misconception that needs to be cleared up is that a header relieves backpressure, but a certain amount of backpressure is needed for optimum performance. Just the opposite is true. A good header not only relieves the backpressure, but goes one step further and creates a vacuum in the system. When the next cylinder's exhaust valve opens, the vacuum in the system pulls the exhaust out of the cylinder. This is what the term "Scavenging" means.

The first consideration is the proper tube diameter. Many people think "Bigger is Better", but this is not the case. The smallest diameter that will flow enough air to handle the engine's c.c. at your desired Red Line R.P.M. should be used. This small diameter will generate the velocity (air speed) needed to "Scavenge" at low R.P.M.s. If too small a diameter is used the engine will pull hard at low R.P.M.s but at some point in the higher R.P.M.s the tube will not be able to flow as much air as the engine is pumping out, and the engine will "sign off" early, not reaching its potential peak R.P.M. This situation would require going one size larger in tube diameter.

The second consideration is the proper tube length. The length directly controls the power band in the R.P.M. range. Longer tube lengths pull the torque down to a lower R.P.M. range. Shorter tubes move the power band up into a higher R.P.M. range. Engines that Red Line at 10,000 R.P.M. would need short tube lengths about 26" long. Engines that are torquers and Red Line at 5,500 R.P.M.s would need a tube length of 36". This is what is meant by the term "Tuned Length". The tube length is tuned to make the engine operate at a desired R.P.M. range.

The third consideration is the collector outlet diameter and extension length. This is where major differences occur between four cylinder engines and V-8 engines. The optimum situation is the four cylinder because of it's firing cycle. Every 180 degree of crankshaft rotation there is one exhaust pulse entering the collector. This is ideal timing because, as one pulse exits the collector, the next exhaust valve is opening and the vacuum created in the system pulls the exhaust from the cylinder. In this ideal 180 degree cycling the collector outlet diameter only needs to be 20% larger than the primary tube diameter. (Example: 1 3/4" primary tubes need a 2" collector outlet diameter.) The rule of thumb here is two tube sizes. This keeps the velocity fast to increase scavenging, especially at lower R.P.M.s. Going to a larger outlet diameter will hurt the midrange and low R.P.M. torque.

The amount of straight in the collector extension can move the engines torque up or down in the R.P.M. range. Longer extension length will pull the torque down into the midrange.

Engines that "Red Line" at 10,000 R.P.M. would only need 2" of straight between the collector and the megaphone. This is just enough length to straighten out the air flow before it enters the megaphone. This creates an orifice action that enhances exhaust velocity.

In the case of V-8 firing order, the five pulses fire alternately back and forth from left to right collector, giving the ideal 180 degree firing cycle. Then it fires two in succession into the left collector, then two in succession into the right collector. If the proper collector outlet diameter is being used (two sizes larger than primaries) the two pulses in succession load up the collector with more air than it can flow. This results in a very strong midrange torque, but causes the engine to "sign off" early, not reaching its potential peek R.P.M. The improper firing order on a V-8 engine results in the need to use large diameter collectors so the engine will perform well at high R.P.M.s. Unfortunately the large diameter collectors cause a tremendous drop in air velocity, resulting in less scavenging through the entire R.P.M. range.

Often cams are used with extended valve timing to help the exhaust cycling. This results in valve timing overlap (Intake and Exhaust valves both open at T.D.C.) which causes a "Reversion" cycle in the exhaust. When this happens, exhaust actually backs up into the cylinder causing intake air to be pushed back out the intake. This reversion causes "Standoff" (fuel blowing out of the Intake) at low R.P.M.s. This whole improper cycling has resulted in a number of "Cure Alls" to help stop this reversion and standoff.

The plenum intake was created to stop the fuel "Standoff". Then came "Anti Reversionary" Cones in the exhaust tubes, and stepped tube diameter in the header, extended collector lengths and even plenums in the exhaust tubes.

In this chain of events beginning with improper firing order, a series of cures has developed, each one causing a new problem.

The optimum cure to this whole problem is to correct the exhaust firing cycle. The two cylinders that fire in succession into each collector have to be separated. This can be done partially by a "Tri-Y" header, where the four primary tubes from each bank merge into two secondary tubes (separating the two pulses firing in succession) and finally collect into a single collector. This type of header helps, but the two pulses are still coming back together at the collector.

The second optimum cure is to cross the two center tubes from each bank, across the engine running them into the collector on the opposite side. This makes the firing cycle in each collector 180 degrees apart, the same as a four cylinder engine. Once this firing order is achieved, the small collector outlet diameter can be used and the "High Velocity Scavenging" at low R.P.M.s cures the reversion problems and eliminates the need for extreme cam duration.

This sounds so easy, you are probably asking why wasn't this done from the start?

If you have ever seen a set of 180 degree headers you would understand.

On today's cars, with space virtually nonexistent, crossing four tubes either under the oil pan or around the front or rear of the engine presents major problems. On racing applications where it is possible, there is still the problem of keeping the tube length down to a reasonable 32" long. If that's not enough challenge, then try to arrange the tubes into each collector so they fire in a "Rotational Firing" pattern. Then you have, what has been called "A Bundle of Snakes".

Arranging the tubes to fire rotationally adds to the scavenging capabilities. The exhaust gas exiting one tube, passing across the opening of the tube directly beside it, creates more suction on that tube than it would on a tube on the opposite side of the collector.

The next problem is "Turbulence" in the collector. When four round tubes are grouped together in a square pattern, so a collector can be attached, you notice a gapping hole in the center of the four tubes. The standard method in manufacturing headers is to cap this hole off with a square plate. This plate in the center of the four tubes creates dead air space, or turbulence, disrupting the high velocity in the collector. This problem is solved by using a "Merge Collector". This collector is formed from four tubes, cut at approximately an 8 degree angle on two sides. When the tubes are all fitted together they form a collector with a "Pyramid" in the center. This has eliminated the need for the square plate and has taken up some of the volume inside the collector, speeding up the air velocity.

Other methods of curing this problem are: fabricating a pyramid out of sheet metal and welding it over the hole between the tubes, or squaring the tubes on two sides so they fit together forming a "+" weld in the center eliminating the hole all together.

You can see that there are a great many factors that go into making a good header. When the header, intake system, and cam timing are all designed to operate to their maximum in the same R.P.M. range, then you have a "Compatible Combination". This combination can be tuned to deliver maximum power at any desired R.P.M. range.

These are some of the "Basics" you need to know about building a good high performance header. There are many other adjustments that can be made to fine tune a header, but this should give you a basic understanding of how all the components work together.

TexasEngineer

Both the article you posted and the one I posted would seem to argue differently. That try y headers allow for the use of even smaller pipes. Referring the article I posted. I believe your primaries to be over sized thus lacking in low to mid range power and possible having no additional benefit in the upper rpm range. I also believe your shorter primaries result in loss of low to mid range power, but may result in some benefit to top end power.

If you look at the Evosport headers, they match the port size and then reduce down to a proper primary size. If you look at some of the nascar headers they do the same thing. You matched the port and then kept the same size pipe.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to be negative, or attack anyone. I am just trying to understand your design.

Also, I do believe there MAY be some benefit to a try y design, but I have never seen any real results proving so. I also believe these benefits to be minimal especial for our application. This is not worth the additional cost to me.

The bottom line is that, from the results i have seen, your headers have seen decent results on the dyno. I just don't believe they are the optimal header configuration for the C63.

MBH motorsports

How can you believe in something you know nothing about? Thats a very reckless statement considering your experience with headers only comes from reading about them. Making them and testing them are much different than reading about them. Do you know That my head fabricator builds headers for IRL racing teams? That his headers have been on cars that have won the Indy 500? So I think we know what we are doing when it comes to making headers for the E55,CLS55 C55,SL55,SLK55,G55, E63,CLS63,SL63,CLK63BS and All the 500's

If my primaries were longer I too would have used smaller pipes. You have to know what the tunable area of a header is. I will say this necking down right after the header flange causes massive hot spots

If its was a basic 4 into 1 header you would understand it right? Thats because there is nothing to understand with a 4-1 header.

Additional cost of what?

Obviously we are not the company for you. Good thing there are others.

MBH motorsports

Lets me be clear. S&S Headers WAS out of Arizona Glendale to be exact. I happen to live in Glendale. So I know about S&S headers. I also know that S&S Headers is OUT OF BUSINESS. Next time quote a company that is not defunct. Maybe if they made good stuff or what not they would not be CLOSED!

TexasEngineer

Hooleyboy,

Instead of explaining something in a technical format (by the way, this was supposed to be a technical tread) you have attacked me and some company that went out of business. Goodness, I sure hope you stay in business forever. If not, you might be considered a know nothing.

I was really hoping you would come back with some kind real technical explanation or documentation backing your claims. By the way, why would it cause a hot spot? There is no way that a 1 ¾” piping or 1 7/8” is causing a restriction. In fact, velocities increase with the smaller diameter. Also, what problem would a “hot spot” cause? Also, you keep talking about tuned area. If tuned area is so important to your design, why are all of you primary lengths and secondary lengths so different? As I understand it, this completely defeats the purpose.

I think we are all disappointed in how this thread turned out. I was simple asking questions and seeking some data.

I guess we can all talk theory tell we are blue in the face, but results are what really matters. Maybe we should put together a headers results page with dyno numbers and track times, but that would probably end up with name calling and ticked off vendors as well just like all the other threads have ended up lately.

Please note that I tried to be respectful here and felt no need to use red font.