Long Tubes a waste on N/A cars.

Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by MustangLife, Feb 25, 2004.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sleeper 362

    Sleeper 362 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gso NC
    5111 here is the link to Modular Madness. http://www.modularmadness.com/ They have been building mod motors since 96. They are probably going to tell you the same thing I am telling yall. Thats what they told me. And I'm blown. There are much more cost effective mods than long tubes. I will agree that if you want the very last HP out of your car LTs will help more than hurt but if I had to choose between Cams or LTs which would you choose.
     
    #121
  2. Sleeper 362

    Sleeper 362 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gso NC
    Its a known Fact. Our cars like a little back pressure. :nice:
     
    #122
  3. BMan5150

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I think this is very interesting . . . thanks for posting. It almost does seem like you'd practically have to shift well after the redline (6000? 6300?) in order to really get the most out of a car with LTs. Is this what people with LTs do when drag racing (at the 1/4 mi track)? Also, do most people with LTs build up their motors with new cams and an upgraded valvetrain to allow for this? :shrug:

    You know, there is actually some good tech in here despite all the borderline name calling. It's just cars, guys - it's not worth getting all in a huff about. I have never seen a proper comparison of a stang with LTs and a stang without LTs - especially not a dyno comparison between SAE-corrected pulls. I'm not saying this comparison is perfect, but this is the best comparison data I've seen so far on LTs. And it allowed me to form a better, more informed opinion on LTs and determine whether I'd ever even have one hint of desire to put them on my car.

    Thanks to those who contributed their dynos and allowing the comparisons. I'd still love to see all of this on one dyno graph! :nice:
     
    #123
  4. Jackie Chan

    Jackie Chan I didn't read this.
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    well, this isnt a good comparison. Different cars were used. Now if Bill(mustang92) shares his before and after numbers that would be more helpful to the less enlightened. A guy like Bill that is very meticulous in his record keeping and comparisons would be able to show you the true gains, but I don't think this thread will get his attn anymore with the :bs: spewed by idiots
     
    #124
  5. BMan5150

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Like I said, it's not a perfect comparison, but there are many variables that have been neutralized by correcting the numbers to SAE and using a Dynojet dyno. What we really don't quite know is what other modifications were on each car when they were dynoed.

    And yes; I'd love to see Bill's SAE-corrected before/after "LTs and o/r midpipe" dyno pull comparison because that would neutralize even more variables (same car, same dyno.) I'd also like to see how similar/dis-similar the curves compared to the two compared in 2000GTs post.
     
    #125
  6. Jackie Chan

    Jackie Chan I didn't read this.
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Like I said its not a good comparison. PERIOD.
     
    #126
  7. BMan5150

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    It's not a PERFECT comparison; but it's also not that bad either for the reasons I cited above. We'll agree to disagree - how bout that?
     
    #127
  8. 2000GT

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Why isn't it a good comparison? Perhaps you just don't like the comparison results.

    It's pretty simple to compare:

    Dynojet vs. Dynojet
    SAE vs. SAE
    99+GT 2V vs. 99+GT 2V
    LT's + midpipe + CB vs. x-pipe + pullies + CB + MAF + dynotune
    250 ish peak rwhp vs. 250 ish peak rwhp

    RESULT - avg. rwhp is the about the same until about 5500 rpms.

    Why is that so hard to grasp?

    Would it be a bad comparison if I graph both dynos against each other? Maybe you are visual learner?
     
    #128
  9. Jackie Chan

    Jackie Chan I didn't read this.
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    I dont think i need the graph to simplify it. I mean I read your posts and figured out that you are ignorant :shrug:
     
    #129
  10. '01 Steed

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm gonna side with Jackie on this one.
    You're comparing a tune, MAF, and pullies (at a total of a conservative $700 for parts alone) to LT's, which cost much less than that. And then you're calling it off at 5,500 rpm? Most 1/4 milers come close to averaging that rpm.
    I don't believe you've made your point. I think you anti-LT guys have buried yourselves in this thread, and you're looking for a point you can rest your argument on. Problem is, your case doesn't hold water. This thread was initiated with an anti-LT argument, and it has been disputed to the point that you really should accept the fact that the initial statements are in fact incorrect.
    I find for the defendant! Next!
     
    #130
  11. 2000GT

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is what I proved wrong.
     
    #131
  12. 2000GT

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Proved this wrong too. There wasn't a "better power curve" on the car with LT's as you put it in your words.

    Still searching for that "better power curve".
     
    #132
  13. Sleeper 362

    Sleeper 362 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gso NC
    Dude forgive me but you are a troll. I read some of your posts about a couple months ago and you are the reason why my post count is so low. Keep living your pipe dream and believe me Anyone who spends 1K for maybe ten HP is an idiot. You can buy a whole drag suspension and almost include the tires for 1K if you know how to shop. I am no beginner but neither are the three different tuners that told me that it doesn't make sense for me to spend that kind of money now, if I know my block is coming out eventually. One of them runs a winning 5.4 in SSO. I talk with these people face to face almost once a week. If you plan on staying stock bottomed and N/A with only bolt ons, its not worth it unless you absolutely have to have that last 100th. You know you should be conserned less with dyno numbers and learn how to drive better and you won't be worried about power under the curve becuase you will never be under it or you won't need it. For me the LT's will be a good investment becuase my exhaust is not flowing enough now but I'm right under 400 RWHP. In my case I can justify the 1K because it'll give me about 30+ hp and more importantly I NEED IT. But you started calling people stupid right off the back thats pretty foul of you. And you know if you weren't listening to a tuner that sells LTs you would know these facts as well.
     
    #133
  14. Ben99GT

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    MS Gulf Coast
    Geez, your own numbers show the LT equipped car made a better (read: BROADER) power curve. You were down by 10 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 21 horsepower at 5,750 rpm and the LT car didn't give up any low end to you. Did I misread the numbers? For two cars with the same peak that is pretty dramatic IMO. All of these dyno results are really useless though, Bill Putnam gained 2 tenths and 2 mph from long tubes as have numerous other people. Who cares if they only make a few peak horsepower on a dyno, the fact is they make your car quicker/faster. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp...
     
    #134
  15. '01 Steed

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Michigan
    2000GT, Post your numbers in the quarter! Bill (Mustang92) has built himself quite a knowledge base, and has much respect on all Modular forums. This didn't happen by mistake. His rep has been based upon a boatload of trial and error, yada yada yada.
    When it all comes down to it, who are you to dispute his experience or anyone of similar stature? My God man, he runs low 12's...NA!
     
    #135
  16. StangLou

    StangLou Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,266
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Holly Springs, NC
    Man there was a lot said on here since I went to work and got back :D. Anyways, 2000GT, I got the printed version of my dyno from the shop. The color printer was just out of ink so I got a black and white version which doesnt show the different pulls very well :notnice: . There were two of us getting dyno'd in a row that day, me and a '91 LX with NOS. Both of our cars were only within 1hp with SAE vs STD #'s :shrug: . I know they can have a huge difference, but for some reason on that day there wasnt much difference on either of our cars. Where would I go about dl'ing the software to convert the #'s though. Im sure I can have the shop email me the #'s or can I plug them in?
    As for this thread, WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!! We all have Mustangs, we all love our cars, we just have differences of opinions on what is best for our cars. I will admit I have definately blasted a few people on here since their views differed from mine, but damn, most of these people feel the same way about their car as I do. They want the best for it, its just the best for mine might not be the best for yours and vice versa.
    Ill post my #'s after my install in a month or so. A nice peak gain would be nice, but if I only gain a few at the peak, but gain a good bit throughout the power curve I will definately be doing the :banana: dance for a long time :D. Hopefully after I get my tax return I can do the TB/Plenum combo and see where that puts me as well :nice: Also, track times will be coming soon :flag:
     
    #136
  17. 2000GT

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1999
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [QUOTE='01 Steed]I'm gonna side with Jackie on this one.
    You're comparing a tune, MAF, and pullies (at a total of a conservative $700 for parts alone) to LT's, which cost much less than that. And then you're calling it off at 5,500 rpm? Most 1/4 milers come close to averaging that rpm.
    I don't believe you've made your point. I think you anti-LT guys have buried yourselves in this thread, and you're looking for a point you can rest your argument on. Problem is, your case doesn't hold water. This thread was initiated with an anti-LT argument, and it has been disputed to the point that you really should accept the fact that the initial statements are in fact incorrect.
    I find for the defendant! Next![/QUOTE]

    I am comparing what I was being called out on - my 250 rwhp car WITHOUT LONGTUBES compared to another 250 rwhp car WITH LONGTUBES. I was told there would be a better power curve and more avg. rwhp. for the car with LT's.

    Well, guess what? There wasn't. For the last time, the stock manifolds are not a restriction in N/A applications. Nobody can admit they spent money and lots of time installing LT's for a little power gain. Plus, nobody just adds LT's by themselves. I have yet to see one car add LT's and not change anything else on the car. With bolt-ons only, the '99+ 2V motor is tapped out between 250-260 rwhp SAE. If you believe otherwise, you are in denial. Cams, superchargers - i.e. "mods. other than bolt-on and drive away" are a whole different story.

    I think its funny how I am labeled as knowing nothing about LT's just because I don't have them installed on my car. It happens all the time on this web site and many other Mustang web sites. How many of us don't have blowers but still believe they produce more power? How can you possibly know blowers make more power if you don't own one? How many of us know that intake spacers do nothing on our cars?

    It called understand the 2V motor, dyno graphs, and having the ability to understand basic logic.
     
    #137
  18. Sleeper 362

    Sleeper 362 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gso NC
    A whole 2 tenths? Now imagine what a set of rear wheels and ET DRAGS will do for you and leave you with about 300 left over for you to bet on yourself or to take some fine honey out to dinner with. :nice:
     
    #138
  19. Sleeper 362

    Sleeper 362 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gso NC
    These are the same people who believe having advanced timing REALLY HELPS. I've watched about 10 2v dyno pulls and you know when my tuner added timing he never saw a gain :) But it did increase the detonation risk. :notnice: So in answer to all the myth chasers go start another how to beat LS1 thread cause your gonna need it. Save that 1K for a blower or heads and Cams work then go fast.
     
    #139
  20. Jackie Chan

    Jackie Chan I didn't read this.
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    i could really give a 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me' about what your buddies say.

    The only reason I mod my car is to go down the strip quicker. If you dont KNOW that longtubes will consistently give me .15-.2 in the quarter you are in denial. I dont give a rats ass what my car dynoes at. I just want the performance to show. I'm no troll but im going to call out every asswipe I see posting :bs: like this thread. THATS A FACT.

    I think words have been twisted in this thread and the original argument is that a full bolt on car that dynos 260 and 300 peak with out long tubes is giving you the same performance as a car with the same mods and longtubes that dynoes the same(peak numbers). Well thats :bs: and everyone with any amount of knowledge besides whats going on inside their a**hole will know it(meaning take your head out of your ass)
     
    #140
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page