Here is some more food for thought. These are excerpts and quotes from the same guy MBH quoted. Actually the same article he posted. He just left this stuff out.



From this article. http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec...ech/index.html

 

I'm not attacking you at all. Just calling it how I see it. If you want to believe that my headers are not good, that so be it.

One thing is for sure, Jack Bruns hasn't seen how huge the exhaust ports are on a the 63 motor.

 

Yes, but he has seen the exhaust ports of race cars. Oh, and the exhuast port shape and size does not determine the proper size of the primaries.

 

How do you know this? Have you personally asked him?

Dude, look through all the threads that Hooley posts about his "most researched headers in the world." His fallback is that his fabricator is famous in the IRL world, and because of that his design is beyond reproach. He's used that in at least four different threads. Isn't that good enough for you?

What all his responses show is that despite all the contradictory data, he made the headers different because sometimes different sells. They make good power and they use less tubing so they're cheaper to make and sell (Seriously, he uses straight tubing in his merges). That's good enough for a lot of people. Pretty much any kind of mid-long tube header design with a dyno tune will make solid power on the M156 and I'm guessing he's smart enough to know that. I mean, seriously, Keith's car made 460rwhp with the MKB shorties. It's not hard to make power on our cars, even with a marginal design.

All the empirical data in the world isn't going go get him to admit he chose different just to be different (but continually prodding him for honest technical design information does make for some entertaining outbursts).

Josh

 

I have one question, if your fabricator has his roots in IRL which all use 4 into 1 design, why are the C63 headers (another NA application) Tri-Y?

I just can't get past that fact. ?

 

Guys, this has the potential to be a great thread. Let's respect the OP's wishes to keep it clean and on-topic.

 

Every other header we make is a 4 into 1. We originally made a 4 into 1 for the c63 and after testing we found that the Tri-Y made more power on the 63. I'll state this as fact. its cheaper to make a 4 into 1 header than a Tri-y. We are going to make what makes the most power. I currently have a jig for a 4 into 1 header for the C63. There is no scene in making that header if it makes us less power. My turn around time for my guys to build a 4 into 1 header is about 2 days. The Tri-Y header takes about 1 week once building starts. Problem is people don't see what I do outside of MBW. I'm constantly trying to improve my products. Until I see my data come back staying my 4-1 header is out performaning my tri-y. Thats what we are sticking with. Plus the customers are not complaining about the performance of the Tri-y either.

 

Any MKB dyno results?

 

Hooley, Hooley, Hooley...

Here's the truth: You consistently ignore legitimate technical questions about your headers and then go ballistic when people make assumptions because you give them nothing to go on. I'm not even the only one questioning you, I'm just the best at baiting you into showing your depth of knowledge and, unexpectedly, true colors as a person. I've never said anything about you or your personal life or even your general design skills. Just specifically the design theory and fact behind your Tri-Y headers.

By the way, yes, I did specifically ask "did you make a header that was to be different?" (Well, I actually asked in English, not jibberish, but it was the same idea) Your refusal to answer that simple question in the first place was what started all of this animosity between us. C'mon, try to keep up. Nonetheless, thank you for FINALLY admitting it.

Also, if your fabricator takes a week to make those headers, I could probably be persuaded to make myself available to help you with production design, because they should really only take 2-3 days max, especially in any kind of batch quantity. You do know I'm a full time designer AND fabricator, right? I also happen to be really good at my job.

I thought it might fair to attach your picture of your headers with all the visibly cheated (i.e. non tangential) joints circled in red. If you're going to quote Jack Burns regarding tri-y design (even though he was actually only referring to collector design) I thought it might also be good to post how he feels about cheated welds such as the ones you have throughout your headers:

Though not directly related to welding, this is a good time to discuss "cheating bends." We consider a properly cut tubing bend as one where the tube is cut perpendicular to the tangent of the bend (Figure 5). It will often be tempting while fabricating a primary tube to "cheat" the bend, that is, cutting it "off-tangent." This is one of the most common "power-robbers" that is over looked by mediocre fabricators. (emphasis added)

source: http://www.burnsstainless.com/weldingarticle2.aspx

So there's that. Thank you Uncle Jack for not making me say it. Also, you're probably not going to answer me regarding your supposed discussion with Jack about the port size, are you?

Anyway I'm bored. These are your headers with just a few of the obviously cheated bends circled in red. Best built, indeed.



Josh

 

Guys, let's keep it technical. FWIW, I'd wondered about the "cheated bends" (I'd always heard it called "cheated radius" - but I think they're synonymous) on a few of the AMG header offerings, including MBH's. Since we're all universally fond of Burns Stainless, here's a quote:

Source: http://www.burnsstainless.com/construction.aspx

Pictures of what appear, in my non-professional opinion, to perhaps be cheated radii:







I think the easiest way to envision this, is to just logically consider the natural direction of flow that a pipe is producing - then look at the joint and subsequent direction of the new pipe/collector. Do the angles and joint cause as little disturbance to the direction of flow possible? Or, are there any areas where the surfaces mate that would cause unnecessary turbulence and loss of flow?

My post is not intended to slam MBH's product - they've demonstrated that their headers and tuning offer a significant improvement in output over the stock AMG wares. Also, they may be knowingly making some of those cheated radii compromises because there may just not be enough room to do otherwise (especially with those 2" primaries) - so it might be a conscious decision and concession made. But, IMHO, a few of those areas could likely be improved with a little extra attention, effort, and perhaps a tweak or two to the bends/piping they use and/or overall product design. Please consider this simply a third-party observation and constructive criticism from an admitted non-expert on the subject matter.

 

I've spent some time cleaning up this thread:

1. Pricing discussion and related posts have been removed.
2. Personal/irrelevant content has been removed.

Suggestions.

1. If you can't handle discussing things in a respectful manner please do not post.
2. Debate is healthy and not everyone will be right. If you disagree, politely present your reasons or agree to disagree and move on.
3. It's not personal. Keep it on subject and bring data.

 

Excellent posts via you and Josh, good finds guys. This goes along with what has been stated previously about non parallel cut and welds (diff terminology for the same issue, non tangenital welds or joints). Also notice the filler rod most specifically located where the primary's come together.

As stated each one of those non parallel cut and welds, cheated bends or welds, causes a huge disruption in flow. Just one is enough to disrupt flow throughout the entire header design, and I see multiple per primary or secondary in this set.

Good eyes gents.

 

So out of all the Long Tube Headers that were posted on the first page, which of them produces the most HP?

Thanks

 

I don't think anyone has done a side-by-side comparison of the four different long-tube brands on the same dyno or track on the same car.

 

Its very difficult if not impossible to get a side by side comparison on the same car, same day, same dyno because no one buys multiple header types and pays to install them all and then try to return the ones they don't keep.

Check out dragtimes and get your answer.

 

Depends on how you want to measure power output.

Using a machine with which a stationary car turns a set of rollers and a computer analyses the data to provide a HP measurement.........there is no clear distinction between designs or manufacturers.

Moving a 4,000 pound car 1,320 feet in the quickest time......the answer is obvious.

 

I disagree that the answer is obvious.

There is no denying the amazing times put down by the MHP crew, however that doesn't "prove" anything. It simply shows the strength of that set-up. Just because the handfull of individuals who are dedicated to racing use a specific set-up doesn't imply similar results couldn't be obtained using a different product.

Dodger, Mthis, Dads, etc are dedicated to making the C63 go fast and have countless trips down the 1/4 mile to improve their technique. I am not aware of similar dedicated folks using a competing set-up. Thus, there is no true way to compare vehicles, let alone 1 piece of an over all package.

Until somebody tests different headers on the same car and same day to isolate variables, everything else is speculation.

Disclaimer - My car is bone stock, including the sexy Conti tires

 

I disagree with your comments. It's been 2+ years since headers and tuning were introduced on this make. Are you trying to tell me that one of the smallest tuning operations in MB land has more track racers than anyone else? Or could it be everyone else has just as many passes however only a few make them public since the rest of the results are not on par with the segment leader?

I think more the later.

There have been cars like Petro that have ran in as good or better air than what the MHP cars have ran in and the results were not the same or close to it.

You can claim speculation all you want but there are too many numbers from too many cars across the world for you to feel comfortable with that assumption.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

I actually agree with WhiteC63. He pretty much nailed it in my eyes.

There is no side-by-side data on the same car, yet. Maybe I'll throw a different set of headers on after I've tested my new combo. I've already tested manifolds, catless down-pipes and long-tubes back-to-back at the same track in similar conditions. Perhaps this Spring I'll throw a set of Tri-Ys into the testing pool.

While certainly reflective of the overall Power output, you can't quite use Petro's car as a standalone header comparison. It just isn't 1:1. How do you know which of Petro's modifications are responsible for the lower output? Is it the headers? Is it the tune? Octane? Launch technique? Air pressure? Weight? There is simply more than one variable that could be responsible.

 

I think you should do it (try some tri-ys).

I never stated which specific parts or tuning from other tuners were responsible for the difference, just that others with the same parts changed (tuning, headers, airboxes, DRs) are not even close to the same results.

I would negate weight (especially when comparing against mthis's car) since he has no weight reduction mods. mthis didn't even have an airbox and from Petro's testing we know the RT boxes work.

Thanks

 

I am not trying to convince you of anything, you are entitled to your opinion. However, your defense again is complete speculation. The bottom line is that a lack of evidence to the contrary does not provide evidence for your argument.

The die-hard racers on this forum use 1 particular set-up, and have had great results. There is no evidence those results would not have been acheived using a competing set-up. Nothing anybody can say changes this fact. Perhaps once dodger achieves his goal, he can swap out headers and make 200+ passes with another brand.

In 1491, all the experts felt the world was flat; it turns out they were mistaken too... Until an unbiased experiment is performed, isolating headers as the single variable, conclusive exidence will remain unavailable.

 

Gotcha. This is a header-discussion so it was implied you were keeping to the topic and referring to headers. No one is arguing the output of the setup. Trying to isolate the performance of one component from the combo is the challenge.

 

Bravo and thank you for adding to this discussion.

 

It is a challenge but again, when you consider the same tuner holds both tune only and tune and header records, and not by a insignificant amount, the answer becomes even more clear.

Love to see the comparo happen, just don't believe it will. Other tuners seem to shy away from direct testing especially race testing vs this combo.

 

Super,

I have a great idea. I'll send you my MBH headers and you can send me
your MHP headers and we can finally put this to rest.

All kidding aside, I've been pushing hard for a custom dyno tune, preferably
something for 100 octane to eliminate that possibility.