American Racing Headers Results

[Gossypiboma]

Originally Posted by SSJTrunks523

Yeah, but I literally have an exhaust and drop in filter. I'm not a max power example. I did a single adjustment to show a delta, or lack thereof.

Say I put down a 390 range. It doesn't mean there wasn't a delta. It just means I put down 390. Again my motor might have been weaker than average and vice versa. If I put down a 420, I might have had a unicorn (though that does not seem to be the case based on the dyno sheets so far). A 420 by itself wouldn't mean anything without the baseline to show it wasn't 418 with test pipes before the headers.

I'm not saying I won't do it. Just saying it doesn't really have a lot of bearing on whether the headers made power or not.

Personally I would love to see my numbers and even more excited to see if an intake or e85, etc could give me a few more. I've been focused on road course set up and brakes for the last while

Do not get stuck on the fact you will not have a baseline run on a dynojet to compare to. Yes that would provide more info, but there are LOADS of stock M3 Dynojet plots to compare to. There is also the high likelihood that other M3's have been dyno'd on the Dynojet you find.

What we are saying is that if your MD deltas are accurate, then your car should easily clear the current NA M3 whp record. If it doesn't break 400whp, then you are not making any more power than hundreds of other factory header M3's, meaning there was another variable at play during your dyno sessions.

Your deltas are so large, far exceeding anything realistic, its hard to take them at face value. 50whp/28tq over a popular OTS tune is simply not possible. If that were true plenty of M3's would be well over 400whp, and thats not the case. 35whp/25tq from headers alone is more than double what the bimmerworld results are.

If you want to get picky dyno before and after an intake install on the same dynojet, thats easy.

I have never been turned away for paying for dyno pulls, so I don't see why any of the locations would do not oblige.

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by BigBoosting

Do not get stuck on the fact you will not have a baseline run on a dynojet to compare to. Yes that would provide more info, but there are LOADS of stock M3 Dynojet plots to compare to. There is also the high likelihood that other M3's have been dyno'd on the Dynojet you find.

What we are saying is that if your MD deltas are accurate, then your car should easily clear the current NA M3 whp record. If it doesn't break 400whp, then you are not making any more power than hundreds of other factory header M3's, meaning there was another variable at play during your dyno sessions.

Your deltas are so large, far exceeding anything realistic, its hard to take them at face value. 50whp/28tq over a popular OTS tune is simply not possible. If that were true plenty of M3's would be well over 400whp, and thats not the case. 35whp/25tq from headers alone is more than double what the bimmerworld results are.

If you want to get picky dyno before and after an intake install on the same dynojet, thats easy.

I have never been turned away for paying for dyno pulls, so I don't see why any of the locations would do not oblige.

But that means literally nothing as stated. If the car puts down 500whp, it means nothing as it could have been a 450whp stock baseline. If it puts down 200whp, that means nothing because it might have been 75whp stock (obvious hyperbole).

You can't use a dyno to compare two different cars with different modifications to show whether a modification produces power. This goes for any modification. You need the same car pre and post modification.

The reason I have been turned down in the past (when trying for this purpose) was that they didn't allow people on their dyno if they weren't tuning them. It wasn't worth their time. I was trying to do dyno pulls on a separate dyno as my tuner to be able to cross verify. Needless to say I gave up after a couple months of calling shops and being told no. That said, I'm going to try to line something up.

Also to Doc Oc's point, I want to run it on the same dyno later this summer when it cools back down to get a run when it's in the 70s to replicate the temperatures seen on the test pipe run. Just for curiosity. I might see if I can have them do a couple pulls, install an intake, do a couple pulls.

[pbonsalb]

I pay little attention to mustang dyno results because they are few and the operator can play with the load. But since your car after tuning and modding reads at the high end of the few results we have, there is no reason to think it would not do the same on a dynojet.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by SSJTrunks523

You can't use a dyno to compare two different cars with different modifications to show whether a modification produces power. This goes for any modification. You need the same car pre and post modification.

Agreed, peak numbers are almost meaningless from dyno to dyno, but that doesn't stop dik measurers from wanting them.

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I pay little attention to mustang dyno results because they are few and the operator can play with the load. But since your car after tuning and modding reads at the high end of the few results we have, there is no reason to think it would not do the same on a dynojet.

Still going to do it. Just pointing out that it doesn't really mean a whole lot comparing dynos. The mustang I was on could have read high. Meaning my baseline was low compared to an average engine and I would never make a record amount of power. Or vice-versa and I got God's gift to the S65. Just throwing headers on and putting down a record power level doesn't mean they made power if you don't know the power pre-headers. It could have been a record holder with test pipes only.

I also asked for months if the testing was acceptable. Simply so that it didn't get to this point and I get a response like "now take the headers off and do it all again on a dynojet with xyz tuning it on the test pipes". Sorry if I seem a bit frustrated. It's just that having it change after the fact is what I was trying to avoid. It is still my time and my money and I'm not a manufacturer, tuner or shop owner. I'm not getting reimbursed for this just because someone is interested what it'd make on Steve's dyno. No try John's. Maybe Sally's.......I'm not a power chaser and just like to enjoy my car at road courses. I was trying to do this to help the community. To be fair, Frank's car made more power than mine on the headers if you assumed that all else was equal. As far as peak #s are concerned, I am a poor example for the headers. I'm just the first (that I know of) to actually document changing only one variable from stock (tuned) to test pipes (tuned) to headers (tuned) and produce dyno sheets.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by SSJTrunks523

But that means literally nothing as stated. If the car puts down 500whp, it means nothing as it could have been a 450whp stock baseline. If it puts down 200whp, that means nothing because it might have been 75whp stock (obvious hyperbole).

You can't use a dyno to compare two different cars with different modifications to show whether a modification produces power. This goes for any modification. You need the same car pre and post modification.

The reason I have been turned down in the past (when trying for this purpose) was that they didn't allow people on their dyno if they weren't tuning them. It wasn't worth their time. I was trying to do dyno pulls on a separate dyno as my tuner to be able to cross verify. Needless to say I gave up after a couple months of calling shops and being told no. That said, I'm going to try to line something up.

Also to Doc Oc's point, I want to run it on the same dyno later this summer when it cools back down to get a run when it's in the 70s to replicate the temperatures seen on the test pipe run. Just for curiosity. I might see if I can have them do a couple pulls, install an intake, do a couple pulls.

After making my last post I went back and looked at the charts I referenced and realized that the numbers were wrong. It was a 59 deg day that my car made 458 rw (not 49) then it lost 17 hp when we ran it on an 89 deg day. Considering it was 35 deg warmer when you dyno'd the test pipe setup vs arh, I would expect similar losses, which would put your real world gains from the headers at about 17 hp over test pipes, which seems completely reasonable. I hope that doesn't sound like I'm trying to shit on your hard work and good numbers, but I've seen the difference temp makes and I'm sure that's what's happening here. On the street you can certainly feel the difference in acceleration on a nice cold day vs a mid summer day.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by SSJTrunks523

Still going to do it. Just pointing out that it doesn't really mean a whole lot comparing dynos. The mustang I was on could have read high. Meaning my baseline was low compared to an average engine and I would never make a record amount of power. Or vice-versa and I got God's gift to the S65. Just throwing headers on and putting down a record power level doesn't mean they made power if you don't know the power pre-headers. It could have been a record holder with test pipes only.

I also asked for months if the testing was acceptable. Simply so that it didn't get to this point and I get a response like "now take the headers off and do it all again on a dynojet with xyz tuning it on the test pipes". Sorry if I seem a bit frustrated. It's just that having it change after the fact is what I was trying to avoid. It is still my time and my money and I'm not a manufacturer, tuner or shop owner. I'm not getting reimbursed for this just because someone is interested what it'd make on Steve's dyno. No try John's. Maybe Sally's.......I'm not a power chaser and just like to enjoy my car at road courses. I was trying to do this to help the community. To be fair, Frank's car made more power than mine on the headers if you assumed that all else was equal. As far as peak #s are concerned, I am a poor example for the headers. I'm just the first (that I know of) to actually document changing only one variable from stock (tuned) to test pipes (tuned) to headers (tuned) and produce dyno sheets.

I think it’s great you are doing this. I am not trying to give you a hard time. You have provided more data than previously existed. As long as you are happy with your results.

Dynojet is the most consistent and easily compared, so it is the result I am most interested in even if there is no baseline.

[Gossypiboma]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I think it’s great you are doing this. I am not trying to give you a hard time. You have provided more data than previously existed. As long as you are happy with your results.

Dynojet is the most consistent and easily compared, so it is the result I am most interested in even if there is no baseline.

Agreed

[Bartledoo]

Odd how the power was falling off so hard well before redline in the first dyno. That doesn't seem right.

[Doc Oc]

Dyno operator let off early

[Pro-AM3]

Thanks OP. You confirmed what everyone who knows anything about engines and performance already knew. ARH is the way to go, NA or S/C

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

After making my last post I went back and looked at the charts I referenced and realized that the numbers were wrong. It was a 59 deg day that my car made 458 rw (not 49) then it lost 17 hp when we ran it on an 89 deg day. Considering it was 35 deg warmer when you dyno'd the test pipe setup vs arh, I would expect similar losses, which would put your real world gains from the headers at about 17 hp over test pipes, which seems completely reasonable. I hope that doesn't sound like I'm trying to shit on your hard work and good numbers, but I've seen the difference temp makes and I'm sure that's what's happening here. On the street you can certainly feel the difference in acceleration on a nice cold day vs a mid summer day.

Not at all. That's a valid point that I should try it on the same dyno again at a more similar temp.

Timing was such as I was asked not to go hard on the car until I got it retuned. As soon as I could get time to get the headers installed, I dove straight from LI to the tuner. Just happened that the day he tuned it was cooler (also August vs April here).

Let me see what I can do. Like I said I might just swallow a intake or something and ask for a pre-post. Idk if that warrants a tune or wasting the tuner's time, but he isn't always there. Maybe I can get someone to just run one, install, run another and I'll just take the 1st run as another data point. Trying not to piss off the shop either. I do a lot of work there with our Subarus.

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I think it’s great you are doing this. I am not trying to give you a hard time. You have provided more data than previously existed. As long as you are happy with your results.

Dynojet is the most consistent and easily compared, so it is the result I am most interested in even if there is no baseline.

Understood. It's just frustrating that everyone asked for a Mustang in the last thread and now Dynojet is preferred. I laid it out completely.

Do you get my point on the peak hp on any dyno though? Just having a record holding car (or not) doesn't prove or disprove whether a power gain was made. A delta does. So I'm happy to spend the summer looking for someone to run it. Maybe I can even find a dyno day. Iirc, there is a shop a state over that does them once or twice per year. Need to check if they have a dynojet. Anyways, data is interesting to me, so I enjoy having more of it.

[pbonsalb]

Sure, but since your car has been sorted out it should not be underperforming. Plus on a Mustang, you are running at the higher end of what anyone has run at. It is unlikely your car is an underperformer. Unlike Mustangs that can have the load adjusted to change results, Dynojets are pretty standardized. They are weather corrected as well but I do think that the correction won’t adjust for heat related timing pull and our cars are known for that, so I would try to dyno on a cooler day first thing in the morning.

[M1rider]

Hey man, thanks for posting your results. Awesome power gains, i actually just recently installed the ARH headers on my ESS supercharged car as well. I think around March, drove the car to Florida and am keeping it there so I'm not with it currently but I've been waiting to get it on the dyno. I believe my car was doing around 580whp but really want to see if there's any other difference with the headers on. I went with the 1 5/8" primaries with no cats and no resonators so the system is loud and intoxicating. Would love to get some results out there for my supercharged cars! Awesome results tho!!

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by M1rider

Hey man, thanks for posting your results. Awesome power gains, i actually just recently installed the ARH headers on my ESS supercharged car as well. I think around March, drove the car to Florida and am keeping it there so I'm not with it currently but I've been waiting to get it on the dyno. I believe my car was doing around 580whp but really want to see if there's any other difference with the headers on. I went with the 1 5/8" primaries with no cats and no resonators so the system is loud and intoxicating. Would love to get some results out there for my supercharged cars! Awesome results tho!!

James posted up, but he had a leak issue or something. Also had a custom tune. The S/C tune area has a small amount of people that have any actual experience. I'd try to find a dyno tune. Most people who are skeptical about NA power are less skeptical on S/C as you're obviously pumping more air.

I'm facing the same issue now trying to find people with experience with Flex on this platform. Basically E85 Gintani or bust and E85 isn't in my area or any of the road courses I visit. I can order it, but need to be able to use 93/100 if I find myself out of E85 (needs to go to the STIs first).

[Elite47]

Which applications are either the 3/4 or the 5/8th used for? Which was used for these dynos?

[SSJTrunks523]

Originally Posted by Elite47

Which applications are either the 3/4 or the 5/8th used for? Which was used for these dynos?

I have the 1-3/4".

"On a blower car, if it's a low boost application with under 8lbs, the 1-5/8th will allow the blower to ramp in quicker, improving bottom end." - what I was told

[M.Hagen]

OP - Thanks for the post and effort to gather and report on the data from your AHR experience. Don't worry about appealing to everyone. Skeptics will be skeptics, regardless of how much you accomodate.

Only on M3post will you get a 10 page circle-jerk about a carbon intake manifold with no backup data to support the +9hp claim. And in another thread, a bunch of uproar over what kind of dyno and controlled variables you should consider when attempting to validate a +30hp (or more) power-adder that has shown repeated results on multiple cars.

Just goes to show... $3,000 engine bling is just too irresistible. Maybe AHR should make a carbon-look header wrap, and then the skeptics will make it rain dollar bills.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

And in another thread, a bunch of uproar over what kind of dyno and controlled variables you should consider when attempting to validate a +30hp (or more) power-adder that has shown repeated results on multiple cars. ]

Can you identify the multiple E9xM3 that have validated 30 rwhp gains from these headers? If you are referring to other cars in general, please identify those with stock headers that are comparable to those on the S65.

I think the ARH system looks well made, but I would like to see more data on as to the gains on an n/a S65 than I have seen since these headers came out. I’d like to see that dynojet run, since the most common numbers for these cars are from Dynojets.

[Richbot]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

OP - Thanks for the post and effort to gather and report on the data from your AHR experience. Don't worry about appealing to everyone. Skeptics will be skeptics, regardless of how much you accomodate.

Only on M3post will you get a 10 page circle-jerk about a carbon intake manifold with no backup data to support the +9hp claim. And in another thread, a bunch of uproar over what kind of dyno and controlled variables you should consider when attempting to validate a +30hp (or more) power-adder that has shown repeated results on multiple cars.

Just goes to show... $3,000 engine bling is just too irresistible. Maybe AHR should make a carbon-look header wrap, and then the skeptics will make it rain dollar bills.

Totally. I want to see trap speed comparison now, whether at a road course since OP tracks his car, or 1/4+, would be very cool to see delta if he has data for his car, or just compare to other cars if not on the same day. The only dyno that really matters after all, is the track. We've got one user putting up some of the the highest NA trap speeds ever seen on this platform, and dipping into mid-11's with these headers on his car. Maybe they're a waste, but I tend to doubt it the more data comes in. He's also running E85 which is something most people haven't toyed with yet, but still, the real world is looking sorta promising

[Gossypiboma]

Originally Posted by M.Hagen

OP - Thanks for the post and effort to gather and report on the data from your AHR experience. Don't worry about appealing to everyone. Skeptics will be skeptics, regardless of how much you accomodate.

Only on M3post will you get a 10 page circle-jerk about a carbon intake manifold with no backup data to support the +9hp claim. And in another thread, a bunch of uproar over what kind of dyno and controlled variables you should consider when attempting to validate a +30hp (or more) power-adder that has shown repeated results on multiple cars.

Just goes to show... $3,000 engine bling is just too irresistible. Maybe AHR should make a carbon-look header wrap, and then the skeptics will make it rain dollar bills.

1. Show us the repeatable +30 hp gains from multiple NA cars please.

2. That sweet looking carbon plenum did come with data from the manufacture, though its stupid expensive. The first purchaser has also state he will be pursuing independent testing.

3. ARH refused for years to offer any real world testing.

4. +30hp gain from the headers even surpasses ARH's ridiculous claims as well as triples any other manufactures header/tune testing.

I don't see why a healthy dose of skepticism is unreasonable.