1965 289 exhaust header vs HIPO manifold

S

synthartist69

Member
Dec 3, 2009
34
0
6
#1
Hello everyone,

My 65 fastback currently has long tube headers on it, alluminum intake, holly 600, and a small 268 comp cam. It runs very well for what it is. The headers need to be replaced due to leaking at the head. I have tried many things to stop the leaking and had some success for a while but the headers have been a royal pain. I could not get these off without cutting them off.

Does anyone know if the try-y headers are an easy install? Do you have to remove the heads or pull the motor to get them on? Are there leaking and warping issues?

Also, I am considering the HIPO 289 manifolds. How much power will I lose if I step down from the long tubes to these? Are the HIPO's a lot better than stock manifolds or is it just hype? Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Jim
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#2
I've never used the hipo manifolds, but I suspect you would feel a degrease in the seat of your pants.

Long tubes or tri-wyes-- cheap headers are cheap headers. Go cheap and you will have the same sealing problems. I fought try-ys top and bottom in years gone by. I have a good set of headers on my current car and I've never had a leak and they don't hang below the frame. The ball and cup where the lower gasket was is great! They were $$$, but I love them. I did my exhaust on the bone stock 289 so I could remove it before rebuilding the motor and painting the eng compartment, then pop it back together easy. I was blown away at how better the stock 289 ran. It had stock manifolds, flowmasters and dumped under the car when I bought it.

If it's in your budget, look at FPA, Accufab and JBA headers.
 
#3
My 65 fastback currently has long tube headers on it, alluminum intake, holly 600, and a small 268 comp cam. It runs very well for what it is. The headers need to be replaced due to leaking at the head. I have tried many things to stop the leaking and had some success for a while but the headers have been a royal pain. I could not get these off without cutting them off.
I didn't have to cut them off, but I used long-tubes for years and got really tired of the heat, noise, occasional leaks, and scraping over speed bumps.

Does anyone know if the try-y headers are an easy install?
Easier than long tubes.

Do you have to remove the heads or pull the motor to get them on?
No.

Are there leaking and warping issues?
Yes, same as any header. Better ones do it less, of course.
Also, I am considering the HIPO 289 manifolds.
I switched to them when I ditched my headers.

How much power will I lose if I step down from the long tubes to these?
Maybe 10% at high rpm. On the other hand, at low rpm, they'll actually be a bit better than long-tubes.

Are the HIPO's a lot better than stock manifolds or is it just hype?
WAY better than stock manifolds. No comparison. The stock ones are just straight logs. The HP is more like a shorty header.

C3OE-9431-B_02.jpg


One thing, though. The stock heads had lousy, poorly made exhaust ports, which must be cleaned up via port-matching to the exhaust, whether it's headers or manifolds. Raw heads with headers will put out noticeably less power than matched heads with HP manifolds.
 
#5
I've been mulling this over as well, but with shorty headers in the mix.

I don't really want to do the long tube or tri-y b/c of heat and the aesthetics (i.e. visible below the car). The hipo manifold or short headers are more appealing to me from that aspect but not if they are not much better than the stock manifolds.

My 289 is high mileage and basically stock so this would be similar to the previous poster - an add on that would be reused when new engine time comes around (which would be a rebuild or a mild crate engine).

:shrug:
 
#6
2+2GT said:
[/I]
Are the HIPO's a lot better than stock manifolds or is it just hype?
WAY better than stock manifolds. No comparison. The stock ones are just straight logs. The HP is more like a shorty header.
Click to expand...

Although they're no comparison, did you compare them to the stock ones anyway in a back to back test?

No criticism, just curious.

I know they look much more streamlined, but I'm curious how much of a difference they make. I guess enough for Ford to bother with them. On the other hand, not all factory parts are effective and well designed just because Ford bothered with them.
 
#7
Helmantel said:
Although they're no comparison, did you compare them to the stock ones anyway in a back to back test?

No criticism, just curious.

I know they look much more streamlined, but I'm curious how much of a difference they make. I guess enough for Ford to bother with them. On the other hand, not all factory parts are effective and well designed just because Ford bothered with them.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a dyno test of the stock logs. They suck so bad I think nobody really wants to know.

C3OE-9431-A_02_000.jpg


Ford sold the HP manifolds as late as the 1980's as a performance upgrade.

C5ZZ9430.jpg
 
#10
I read somewhere, I think it was at mustang monthly on the web about a dyno on these. They tested the factory logs, the hipo's, and the try-y headers. The Hipo's showed 1 more horsepower but they said that it was likely due to using the same 2" exhaust.
 
#11
synthartist69 said:
I read somewhere, I think it was at mustang monthly on the web about a dyno on these. They tested the factory logs, the hipo's, and the try-y headers. The Hipo's showed 1 more horsepower but they said that it was likely due to using the same 2" exhaust.
Click to expand...

Considering the increase in cross section of the ports, I'm gonna be skeptical of that number. A clutch fan will give about 5 hp, to give some context for my impression. 2" exhaust is not so restrictive for a 289 CID engine. The 67 GT500 428 dual-quad engine came with 2" exhaust, fer cryin' out loud.
 
#12
i switched from tri y's to the hi po's. i had BAD steering problems with the long tubes. my pitman arm HIT the primary and had to be dented in. Patriot brand sucks.

switched to a hi po and made a big difference in power from the seat of the pants feel. BUT, i can turn freely now lol
 
#14
The hipo manifolds will probably hold gaskets better, but I wouldn't rule out shorty headers. They don't give up that much to longtubes. Heck, even the stock shorty headers from a 5.0 Mustang wouldn't be too bad.

I recommend shelling out the extra to get some high quality headers regardless of type. I had Flowtech shorties on my '89 GT and not only did the 1-piece flanges warp, the bolts wouldn't even stay tight between oil changes. I think I replaced at least five because they fell completely out. I have Hooker longtubes in my '68 now(engine came out of the above '89 GT) and have had no problems like that.

Keep in mind that just about all longtubes will interfere with the power steering ram. "Drop brackets" are available, but many question their strength.
 
#15
65ShelbyClone,
FWIW, my FPA headers have no need for the drop bracket on the steering and do not hang down under the car. They are even step headers that are 3/4" at the collector. I wouldn't use the drop bracket because of too many tales of them pulling out.
 
#18
S-Car-Go said:
65ShelbyClone,
FWIW, my FPA headers have no need for the drop bracket on the steering and do not hang down under the car. They are even step headers that are 3/4" at the collector. I wouldn't use the drop bracket because of too many tales of them pulling out.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't say that absolutely all longtubes need one; I know there was at least one option available that does not. ;)
 
#19
Just my .02 cents, but I've had ebay special, (used no name brand), nickle chromed Tri-Y's on my 89 Ranger for 8 years now. And once I switched to Percy's gaskets, they've never leaked. And only once or twice had to retighten the bolts. And used them with both my Canfield heads and E7TE's. I had to angle grind the flange bottoms to fit the profile of the lower portion of the E7 heads. From what I've seen though, they fit the Rangers with a V8 better than the classic Stangs they were designed for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
03 GT Misfire at idle only, calling all experts!
Replies
0
Views
227
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
midnight03
M
B
Header Bolt Snapped off Please help
Replies
3
Views
1K
2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
chrlsful
C
85Punisher
Fox MAC Long Tube Exhaust Headers Model?
Replies
2
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
General karthief
General karthief
1
Motor not sitting correctly with new motor mounts
Replies
6
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
revhead347
revhead347
dz01
Headers vs. Manifolds
Replies
9
Views
4K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Ray65-71-73
Ray65-71-73
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu