PTS-BRG

Vektor:

I completely understand not wanting to answer to any and every request for discounted parts or any sort of sponsorship.
So, I have a proposition and question. First the proposition:

I would like to pay full retail for your headers and send them to BGB for dyno testing. Before and after in the same car on same dyno, same day.
I dont think you would have any problem with that as I am not asking for even a one penny discount below retail plus shipping for a set.

QUESTION:
What is your return policy on installed parts? I ask because if the Headers do not provide similar improvements on BGB's dyno as they did on the motoiq dyno, then I would
ask that you accept a full refund for the part plus round trip shipping to get it back to you. Not asking for an exact HP to HP mirror of results, but even close results is what I am seeking.

If you are confident in the results from motoiq, or even if you are confident that your header will perform significantly better than stock on the same car, then
you should have no issue with accepting the part back if it doesnt live up to expectations. Of course, if it performs well or even better than expected then there would be no reason to uninstall or return it.

Can we do this? Can I prove to the forum members with independent dyno testing that your headers provide better flow and increased HP over the entire RPM range over stock?
If they do then this is a gift for you and your product. Someone willing to pay full retail, shipping, installation labor and dyno time to prove your part is superior.

If it fails though, I think you may have bigger problems so I understand if you don't want to accept.
Let me (us) know, my AMEX is ready to go...

VektorPerformance

Couldn't agree more. If there were a better performing product on the market, we'd be using it. We send them 5-20 headers per month (seasonality in this industry) for the last many years and very, very rarely have an issue.

You will never please all of the people all of the time. I used to feel it would provide some level of vindication if I discussed my credentials; degrees, years of experience, knowledge gained, working and consulting with real race teams, blah, blah, blah, but with some, it's just a waste of keystrokes :/

groundhog

This thread has turned into a chase for HP and torque as opposed to performance and reliability. To win or even be competitive in a race series or multi-day event, performance mated with reliability is the winning formula.

^^^^^ really? - I don't have the time, inclination and patience to respond to this.

The key to campaign success with turbocharged engines is heat management - not the addition of tubular headers.

4 Point 0

Someone with more experience please correct me if I am wrong, but typically Headers do not show an increase in HP over the entire RPM range? So whilst I was on board with where you were going at first, then I saw this statement.

This is unrealistic customer expectation. Typically headers improve upper end range? (Which is where most want it anyway) But I doubt anyone has ever built a header that increased power over the entire rpm rev range. That would definitely need to be accompanied with a tune to achieve anything like that.

4 Point 0

How about a group buy? I'm sure there are at least 5 guys on here that want the best header for their car?

(It's the Vektor collector that gets me. Mandrel bending is epic, but that collector is better than the other things on offer for our cars at present.)

groundhog

Can we keep this to a race prep thread prep thread please - vektor can set up a tuner or header thread to sell the products they offer.

Straight question to BGB - are you trying to build, prepare and test a GTS for a race campaign or are you more interested in the tuning potential. I'm interested in the former not the latter.

windblow

LOL, a simple PM to BGB would suffice.

4 Point 0

Relax Hoggy, I think its great to talk with individual vendors. PWR are here in OZ, I went and visited them the other day. They do the upgraded radiators out front to keep things cool for you.

I am happy for all vendors to comment. I want it all, with minimal compromise. Awesome steering feel and handling. Superb braking, and Uncompromised POWER.

flsupraguy

I'm in for a group buy

VektorPerformance

Could not agree more. DNF is the last thing any track guy wants.

So start a new thread when you have some time. I'm game for a good technical discussion.

They go hand-in-hand. Thermal management can always be improved upon depending on the tolerance of your wallet. Going from manifold to header does not necessarily mean you take a hit in thermal management. With exposure and the airflow at the back end of these cars, I would bet a rack of beer the differences are hardly measurable.

Same here. Motorsports level components can always be used on the street, but going in the reverse direction can be problematic.


This can be true, but it really depends where you're starting from. Some of the factory headers from Porsche (on the more track oriented trim levels) come with some very well designed headers and are tough to beat. You can 'tune' the design for specific areas of the power band and make gains, but when you make a change for flow enhancement targeting a specific rev range, there is often a sacrifice in another. A crappy analogy is cams. While having a larger lift and duration for high RPM flow enhancement, the reduced low RPM flow velocity will often translate into poorer cylinder swirl and fill, making less power. Back to headers, if what you're stating with is a poor design, like a log style manifold shown here (W204 AMG C63, also a stamped and robotically MIG welded design), then there is LOTS of room for flow and scavenging optimization! In a case like this you should see more pronounced gains over a larger range of RPMs. Coming from N/A for forced induction the ideal design parameters do change, and the benefits are more significant as the turbocharger, and making it work more efficiently, will have a much more pronounced effect. So yes, you can have gains everywhere in the rev range if done right. Could turbo manifold be made to work better at won RPM than another? Absolutely, but that almost always provides a reduction in the total area under the curve.




In the case with the 991.2 you can certainly size up/down the primaries, change the length, and collector style to move the power around some. Given the space constraints on the 991.2 (for stock turbo location anyway), there is not a whole lot of space for moving the 'peak' around, but it could be done to some extent. Once relocated turbo setups become available, I would expect a decent bump in header efficiency/performance as well, with the power moving to the right as is expected with higher flowing turbochargers.

.

PTS-BRG

As expected, not a peep from Vector regarding my offer so, I guess we can gather that you aren't very confident in your own product if you aren't willing to sell one at full retail for testing and only accept a return if it fails to provide any significant improvements over stock. And that my friends is yet another aftermarket part manufacturer claiming to do something better than Porsche can. Some do, most cannot.

4 Point 0: Attached is the motoiq graph and a couple of paragraphs of text. Based on the chart and the comments, the power band begins at 4300 all the way to redline and is essentially identical to stock from 0 rpms to 4300. To me that is the entire power band. I was asking vector to agree to a return if the part doesnt perform like the motoiq tests show it does. What I didnt want them to be able to say is "hey it performs better at 4800, worse at 5500, better at 6100 and worst at 7700". To me that is not a gain, it is an alteration of the flow that offers no noticeable improvement and perhaps even an overall decrease in performance, similar to the chart that was provided for the IPD plenum, but lets not go there again.

Without independent testing and proof this part can do anything better than the stock headers, I am not interested in any group buy. And, as a person who does a bit of reading, after reading Vector posts and comparing the writing style to the motoiq article, it is apparent to me that the language and writing style is "very similar". Either Vector was quoted verbatim by the author or the Vector guys wrote the copy and it was cut and pasted into the article.

Now I am on a different path, I want to bet Vector $5000 that their part will not perform the way the chart below claims it can. And let me go one step further, if you dont accept the bet I am very likely going to buy the part and prove my point with independent dyno testing because now I feel I owe it to the community to put up or shut up, myself included.

VektorPerformance

PST, when BGB is fully sponsored by another manufacturer that he has stated will provide the same component (for free), a company the currently sell for and have had a long relationship with (his words not mine) it smells like a recipe to 'show' how the product he markets and sells perform better. Seems baited to me. You want unbiased testing, pick a facility midpoint between us. You bring your 991.2, I'll bring ours. We'll do before/after on both cars. Compare tunes, datalogs, and of course plots. This would be great (and much more unbiased) for the community as it shows stock-ish and a more modified variant being tested. That said I can appreciate the path BGB is going on will be following his progress.

As far as the plot comparisons, there are many variables to dyno plots. We have a Mustang 500 AWD-SE dyno that is eddy current based. DynoJet uses inertia, Land and Sea, Dynocom, Superflow, etc. are all going to show variances. Could be ramp rate variances, peak numbers, and so on. They will all argue that theirs is more accurate, lol

For example:

Customer supplied plot...





And here is one off our Mustang from the other day with Vektor Performance Headers with the Multi-Layer Ceramic Coating vs stock manifold. All with Cobb Stage 1 91Oct...




As you can see these are vey different looking plots. Mostly due to the dyno variances. Of course there are other factor as well: How good is the airflow in the dyno room? Stock or other wheels/tires? Some dyno manufacturers have even change their designs and technologies making them variable across years from the same manufacturer. Heck even the method for how you 'strap down' can have an effect on the output. The point is that plots from different dynos and dyno facilities look different. That is normal

PTS-BRG

Ok, I accept.

There is an AWD dyno facility in upstate CT that I can bring my car to. I have no affiliation with them and have never even been to the shop.
If you have some suggestions in the state of CT, MA or NYC area let me know, I will provide my car as well as pay for the Vecor part.

Now you have an independent facility that will test on a brand new 2018 GTS at my expense.
Lets see the results, Believe me, I WANT it to provide the gains.

OH, just to be clear and for all to see.. if the part doesnt provide similar results as the motoiq charts then you are willing to refund me the cost of the part, correct?


I would like to add that in BOTH of the charts you just provided, the improvements are from ZERO RPM's all across the powerband.
Not a single spot on either chart that shows the stock header providing more flow than the Vector.
If my dyno chart shows anything like that then you have easily proven the part works.

groundhog

Vektor - I'm interested in track prep, track testing and outcomes e.g. results and associated logs under race conditions.

PTS-BRG

Groundhog: I doo have the Cobb AP and can pull some data from it in addition to the dyno charts during the testing.