DYNO RUN - Stock Headers vs. Scargo Headers
03-23-2003, 12:42 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DYNO RUN - Stock Headers vs. Scargo Headers
Sent my car to Imagine Auto (IA) in Kansas. Stephen Kaspar is retuning the ECU for a better more HP / TQ program, Roll cage, and misc. upgrades. I asked IA to run a baseline on my car and here is what we've discovered. The car, which supposedly in CA at Scargo, ran a 491RWHP to 501RWHP with the scargo headers, splitter and throttle body. However, at IA, at 40degrees cooler weather, ran 456RWHP and 433RWTQ. Why the loss of power?? I don't know, and can't explain other than whats left to my imagination.
However, IA had a theory we needed to prove, regarding the effectiveness of aftermarket headers. So we installed the stock headers back on the car, and produced 10 more rear wheel horse power, and 30 more rear wheel torque. (480RWHP / 480RWTQ) So what the Scargo headers did ONLY give me was more PHP (Psychological Horse Power). To figure out the PHP is simple, the formula is n + - 10RWHP + -30RWTQ = 60PHP. In my case, (n=$2800.00) and you can replace n for whatever you buy scargo headers for. Now I still do believe Rob and Scargo do provide stand up service and passion behind their delivery. However, Wake UP call to those considering scargo headers, intake, splitter, throttle body, etc..... UNLESS you see proven HP / TQ dyno print outs with isolated tests on their products, do NOT spend a dime. Their new carbon fiber intake for example....The price is $2500-$2900 and you would think that a tuner expecting to sell the intake or any part for that price would have proven isolated tests reflecting its true HP/TQ increase. We have yet to see that. Scargo now does offer a shorter more freeflow header system. Fortunately, I have decided not to be the guinea pig on that test, but ask them what the true increase in power and torque is, and whatever the verbal opinion, its still unproven. Duane in Miami just picked up a set of those new headers, and he will HOPEFULLY have positive results to post on what "JUST HEADERS" will do.
Kudos to Stephen Kasper and Imagine Auto with compliments to Todd at Evo. Imagine Auto and Stephen will be rising from the little company in the midwest, to a very successful tuner based on his methodologies, his passion, delivery, systematic approach to tuning, and HONESTY! I will post results of the project once its complete.
<img border="0" alt="[oops]" title="" src="graemlins/oops.gif" />
<img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ksdyno.jpg" alt=" - " />
However, IA had a theory we needed to prove, regarding the effectiveness of aftermarket headers. So we installed the stock headers back on the car, and produced 10 more rear wheel horse power, and 30 more rear wheel torque. (480RWHP / 480RWTQ) So what the Scargo headers did ONLY give me was more PHP (Psychological Horse Power). To figure out the PHP is simple, the formula is n + - 10RWHP + -30RWTQ = 60PHP. In my case, (n=$2800.00) and you can replace n for whatever you buy scargo headers for. Now I still do believe Rob and Scargo do provide stand up service and passion behind their delivery. However, Wake UP call to those considering scargo headers, intake, splitter, throttle body, etc..... UNLESS you see proven HP / TQ dyno print outs with isolated tests on their products, do NOT spend a dime. Their new carbon fiber intake for example....The price is $2500-$2900 and you would think that a tuner expecting to sell the intake or any part for that price would have proven isolated tests reflecting its true HP/TQ increase. We have yet to see that. Scargo now does offer a shorter more freeflow header system. Fortunately, I have decided not to be the guinea pig on that test, but ask them what the true increase in power and torque is, and whatever the verbal opinion, its still unproven. Duane in Miami just picked up a set of those new headers, and he will HOPEFULLY have positive results to post on what "JUST HEADERS" will do.
Kudos to Stephen Kasper and Imagine Auto with compliments to Todd at Evo. Imagine Auto and Stephen will be rising from the little company in the midwest, to a very successful tuner based on his methodologies, his passion, delivery, systematic approach to tuning, and HONESTY! I will post results of the project once its complete.
<img border="0" alt="[oops]" title="" src="graemlins/oops.gif" />
<img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ksdyno.jpg" alt=" - " />
03-23-2003, 01:14 PM
#2
Rennlist Member
sounds pretty dissapointing. Was there a difference in dyno techniques? Did SCARGO use a 4 wheel dyno?
The plot still looks prett nice, and you still have some good numbers, hopefull IA will get you in the mid 550 range.
Also, isn't it great to find someone worth your trust in this business!
The plot still looks prett nice, and you still have some good numbers, hopefull IA will get you in the mid 550 range.
Also, isn't it great to find someone worth your trust in this business!
03-23-2003, 04:17 PM
#5
Remember that the car is a complete system. Everything must first be designed (through analysis and computer simulation) to work together perfectly. Just putting some high-flow parts on your car does not mean you will get more HP or TQ. For example, the Ruf Turbo R has new cams, exhaust, air filter, fuel pressure regulator and turbos. If you kept the stock ECU (or even used a modified non-Ruf ECU) the car would likely be slower than stock, even with all these added gadgets.
As you gain more experience with these cars, you'll find that the fine details of the ECU software are absolutely the most important factor in increasing HP and TQ when the engine is modified for more air flow.
As you gain more experience with these cars, you'll find that the fine details of the ECU software are absolutely the most important factor in increasing HP and TQ when the engine is modified for more air flow.
03-23-2003, 04:20 PM
#6
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Bill S.:
<strong>Remember that the car is a complete system. Everything must first be designed (through analysis and computer simulation) to work together perfectly. Just putting some high-flow parts on your car does not mean you will get more HP or TQ. For example, the Ruf Turbo R has new cams, exhaust, air filter, fuel pressure regulator and turbos. If you kept the stock ECU (or even used a modified non-Ruf ECU) the car would likely be slower than stock, even with all these added gadgets.
As you gain more experience with these cars, you'll find that the fine details of the ECU software are absolutely the most important factor in increasing HP and TQ when the engine is modified for more air flow.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I agree 100percent.
<strong>Remember that the car is a complete system. Everything must first be designed (through analysis and computer simulation) to work together perfectly. Just putting some high-flow parts on your car does not mean you will get more HP or TQ. For example, the Ruf Turbo R has new cams, exhaust, air filter, fuel pressure regulator and turbos. If you kept the stock ECU (or even used a modified non-Ruf ECU) the car would likely be slower than stock, even with all these added gadgets.
As you gain more experience with these cars, you'll find that the fine details of the ECU software are absolutely the most important factor in increasing HP and TQ when the engine is modified for more air flow.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I agree 100percent.
03-23-2003, 04:24 PM
#7
Three Wheelin'
shank,
Thanks for posting your findings, I suspected the SCG headers wouldn't put out 30-40 more HP that some people were claiming. I think most people that have the headers are feeling just a change in turbo response, not real increase in HP/tq. What's surprising is the actual loss of power, which I was concerned about due to the design. I had some inquires about the headers when they first came out, and voiced my concerns about the design. No one had any hard data. We do now!
Thanks for posting your findings, I suspected the SCG headers wouldn't put out 30-40 more HP that some people were claiming. I think most people that have the headers are feeling just a change in turbo response, not real increase in HP/tq. What's surprising is the actual loss of power, which I was concerned about due to the design. I had some inquires about the headers when they first came out, and voiced my concerns about the design. No one had any hard data. We do now!
Trending Topics
03-23-2003, 04:30 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by cjv:
<strong>however the reply is long and I did not want to re write the whole response.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Welcome to the computer age!
Copy/paste saves you the trouble of writing it again.
<strong>however the reply is long and I did not want to re write the whole response.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Welcome to the computer age!
Copy/paste saves you the trouble of writing it again.
03-23-2003, 04:57 PM
#9
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Chad,
The Dyno was pulled on two days, both were drizzle conditions. The only difference was the temp. It was warm and humid verses cold and humid. The day we dynoed it the second time it was drizzle and 60 degrees. In all fairness the difference at sea level numbers compared to KC are corrected. I didn't post uncorrected numbers. Not fair or accurate to do so.
The Dyno was pulled on two days, both were drizzle conditions. The only difference was the temp. It was warm and humid verses cold and humid. The day we dynoed it the second time it was drizzle and 60 degrees. In all fairness the difference at sea level numbers compared to KC are corrected. I didn't post uncorrected numbers. Not fair or accurate to do so.
03-23-2003, 05:44 PM
#10
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Chad,
I really hate getting in these types of discussions for many reasons. So I will try to keep this short.
Headers work, how and for what always depend on the application. For a NA car equal length or long tuned headers really work well. To pick up 30 and 30 is not unheard of and very common.
Turbo cars do not work in the same manner (as you know) and require a different thought process. We have done testing on 930s, 993Twin turbos, custom twin turbos and never once did we get a overall (HP&TQ)gain by going to a tuned long header. What we did get was always a loss in torque and ALWAYS a increase in spool time. The curves are farther up the band and want to make power off the end of the scale. The header design is so similar to the 993TT it isn't funny. We never could find a gain by changing the headers. In the 996TT the case for most will be the same. The levels you are at you need an enlarged diameter, but your collectors and primaries should be as short as possible with good flow and no turbulence. For the street guys and the people that want to stay under 7000RPM the stock headers will beat the long versions every time.
My only limitation to the 510 I put down was the turbo. My torque figures were 589.5 and at 4200. This is on stock headers. Our original tuning was done on a completely different car, with the same setup. Then transplanted to mine.
There is no right answer for your question. Headers have their place, just not specifically here. Bigger is not always better for a turbo BEFORE the turbo. After is a different story.
I really hate getting in these types of discussions for many reasons. So I will try to keep this short.
Headers work, how and for what always depend on the application. For a NA car equal length or long tuned headers really work well. To pick up 30 and 30 is not unheard of and very common.
Turbo cars do not work in the same manner (as you know) and require a different thought process. We have done testing on 930s, 993Twin turbos, custom twin turbos and never once did we get a overall (HP&TQ)gain by going to a tuned long header. What we did get was always a loss in torque and ALWAYS a increase in spool time. The curves are farther up the band and want to make power off the end of the scale. The header design is so similar to the 993TT it isn't funny. We never could find a gain by changing the headers. In the 996TT the case for most will be the same. The levels you are at you need an enlarged diameter, but your collectors and primaries should be as short as possible with good flow and no turbulence. For the street guys and the people that want to stay under 7000RPM the stock headers will beat the long versions every time.
My only limitation to the 510 I put down was the turbo. My torque figures were 589.5 and at 4200. This is on stock headers. Our original tuning was done on a completely different car, with the same setup. Then transplanted to mine.
There is no right answer for your question. Headers have their place, just not specifically here. Bigger is not always better for a turbo BEFORE the turbo. After is a different story.
03-23-2003, 08:08 PM
#11
Rennlist Lifetime Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> What do you think would happen to my motor if they also test the OME headers on the same day also? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">You would go backwards. At 700HP at the crank you need 1 5/8- 1 3/4. The issue I have with various headers in the industry is the length. Equal length headers do not work in a turbo. This is not something that is in question, this is something that has been proven on the dyno time and time again. Lag times are increased and torque goes down. I know what the books say, but translation from paper to street is not always the same. Special attention should be given to the collector and the angle as well.
03-23-2003, 10:37 PM
#12
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York City
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by cjv:
<strong>Stephen,
Was it also appropriate for the S Car Go headers? A good way to help determine is by reviewing the air/fuel ratios. These are available when the car was dyno'ed. I would really like to see these.
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Chad. Perhaps we should ask S Car Go. If you are thinking the ECU programming was not appropriate for the S Car Go headers, then why did Rob release the car to me and state the air/fuel was fine and dandy and that the headers were appropriate?
When you do get the headers back, and do get them installed, can you please scan the dyno charts and post it? We haven't seen any of the scans of the dyno sheet of S Car Go before and after headers, until my post. Also, I am not sure what Rob is trying to accomplish by testing this. To reiterate, he did release the car to me stating air/fuel is good and the headers alone added HP/Torque, but now all of a sudden, he wants to test it on your car with additional injectors and other mods. I would not value any further claim from s car go unless you witness in person..a dyno test (please scan the dyno sheet too) with and without headers on giac tuned car,....Just like they claimed, installed, and released to me. I don't think the headers installed on your car with added injectors is a fair comparison to mine.
<strong>Stephen,
Was it also appropriate for the S Car Go headers? A good way to help determine is by reviewing the air/fuel ratios. These are available when the car was dyno'ed. I would really like to see these.
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Chad. Perhaps we should ask S Car Go. If you are thinking the ECU programming was not appropriate for the S Car Go headers, then why did Rob release the car to me and state the air/fuel was fine and dandy and that the headers were appropriate?
When you do get the headers back, and do get them installed, can you please scan the dyno charts and post it? We haven't seen any of the scans of the dyno sheet of S Car Go before and after headers, until my post. Also, I am not sure what Rob is trying to accomplish by testing this. To reiterate, he did release the car to me stating air/fuel is good and the headers alone added HP/Torque, but now all of a sudden, he wants to test it on your car with additional injectors and other mods. I would not value any further claim from s car go unless you witness in person..a dyno test (please scan the dyno sheet too) with and without headers on giac tuned car,....Just like they claimed, installed, and released to me. I don't think the headers installed on your car with added injectors is a fair comparison to mine.
03-23-2003, 11:16 PM
#14
Rennlist Lifetime Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I still really have only one question. Were the S Car Go headers given a fair test. We know Shanks GIAC chip was tuned for the stock header package. Was it also appropriate for the S Car Go headers? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yes, the test was fair. For the application of desired HP and TQ they are inappropriate. 600HP(FWHP) and under the headers are not the right choice. I have no issue with the fact that if the AFR was better a gain was to be had....How much is the question.
If look at my charts of my own car my TQ peaks 589.5 at 4200 where your last run peaks at "4800 563.3" This prove my point that even with the stock headers TQ for the lower ranges is higher and sooner and able to support big TQ better than the headers. The longer versions that Ryan is running will not make matters better.
I produced full TQ as well as other cars we have done a full 1000RPM sooner than Ryan's car. Thats very substantial and even if a 12.9 had been achieved I doubt it would have changed the curve that much.
If look at my charts of my own car my TQ peaks 589.5 at 4200 where your last run peaks at "4800 563.3" This prove my point that even with the stock headers TQ for the lower ranges is higher and sooner and able to support big TQ better than the headers. The longer versions that Ryan is running will not make matters better.
I produced full TQ as well as other cars we have done a full 1000RPM sooner than Ryan's car. Thats very substantial and even if a 12.9 had been achieved I doubt it would have changed the curve that much.