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. You know the sad thing about this statement is that you are trying to be sarcastic but in reality it's a true statement. Two cars racing and making the same peak power with different parts will come down to the car with the better power curve. Now if you are looking to run around to the local car show and polish your wheels and frame your dyno sheet then your right LTs aren't going to do much for you. But if you talking about a bolt on car racing at the track give me a car with a stock intake and longtubes versus a car with a plenum and stock manifolds and I'll beat it every pass.

    At the current rate posts like this are going to set back 2V performance.

  2. I'll tell you what, I will e-mail you my dynojet graph tonight. Just provide me with your e-mail address.

    This way you can post my graph against Cottonburerz and 03trubluGT's graphs and prove me wrong.

    So good? I can hardly wait. Please PM your e-mail address so you can teach me how to read a graph.

  3. that is a sad thought Bill. :(

  4. Nice to see Mustang92 posting here - too bad his comments seem to be falling on deaf ears. :(

    Repeat after me, total area under the curve.
  5. Can someone take Cottonburerz and 03trubluGT's and then get 2000gt's dyno graph and overlay them on the same dyno sheet? Im not a photoshop wizard. You are going to be surprised how different the curves will be. We dont want to hear any ricer excuses after you have been proven wrong, cause you are wrong. Like Bill said if all your trying to do is brag about peak hp numbers then yes longtubes arent worth it. If you are a real racer or just a street/strip guy then longtubes are one of the better mods for our cars.
  6. What point are you trying to argue? You dont think Longtubes are worthy boltons? I sure hope thats not what you are sayin, because that is just another retarded statement.:nonono:
  7. I totally agree with Jackie Chan, if you have a car with more peak horsepower than me but mine has more average horsepower i will have lower e.t.'s evertime
  8. I agree, but are you talking about the average HP from idle to redline or from 4000-redline? When racing (I'm assuming drag), the power curve does much below 3500 doesn't really matter as you don't spend any time there. This is also assuming you have good tires and can launch at that high of an rpm.

    Anyway, to get back to the original post, LT do help. I'd own them tomorrow if I had the money. I'm getting gears first though.

    BTW, this has become the dumbest chain of posts ever, and I'm only contributuing to it. I'll stop now.
  9. The only way you are getting 250rwhp or 295rwtq without long tube headers is going to be with an off road pipe and other mods (timing adjuster, cold air , TB , plenum) etc ..., you can bolt long tube one with no other mods and see that right off the bat , now do those mods and bolt on a full lengths and i am sure it will lay all this BS to rest .
  10. Cottonburnerz and 03trubluGT:
    E-mail me your Dynojet files to - [email protected]

    I will put all of them on one graph for everyone. I would have suggested this earlier, but I figured most of you will think I manipulated the data to make my graph look best. I will be glad do to the work is you send me the files.

    For those of you out there who feel this thread was a waste of time (but still particated in it?), then this should make it worthwhile.

    It will take me about five minutes to merge all three dyno into one graph and label each run. Amazingly, I can do this with no photoshop experience (it's all done with Dynojet software). The hard part will be figuring out how to post the graph on Stangnet as I have never tried it. I don't have a web site. I'll be waiting for your Dynojet files.

    Silverpony00 - if I wanted to brag about peak horsepower then I would put my uncorrected dyno numbers in my sig. like most stangnet users like do to. Uncorrected dyno numbers = worthless.
  11. what is there to prove, are you going to try and tell everyone that longtubes are a waste? good thing you came along, this place was running light on morons trying to disprove proven mods:nonono:
  12. That is exactly the type of response I expected to see. No, I was told (by many LT owners) that LT's are all about avg. hp. So, now I am trying to show everyone that the avg. LT hp is no different then the avg. hp. of a car without LT's - however, both cars having about the same peaks.

    Is it really a waste to show all three dynos merged onto one graph? What if someone is about to purchase LT's and they came across this thread? Seems pretty helpful to me.

    If the avg. LT horsepower is higher than my car, then the LT's graphs should sit above my graph everywhere except for the peaks. If all graphs are SAE corrected, then I think this would be very informative to tech forum.

    Isn't this a tech forum?
  13. its redundant tech. do you think that this same situation didnt exist until you questioned it? just give it up, you are wrong. nothing for you to prove here period. now move along and start a plenum or cai thread.
  14. this thread.....

  15. :lol: Yer killin' me! That's hilarious! :lol:

    One related question I have however is...Is it true that the LT's cause our mod motors to consume more oil via exhaust scavenging? If not, this will be my next mod! :banana:
  16. :mad: Damn car salesmen! :lol:
  17. Well lookin at your graphs A/F #s it also had a tune put on it to lean up its rich condition.
  18. I love long tubes...my friend has em on his with a mac off road H and 3in cat back and its well worth it. It sounds great. Although they are a pain to install and you always worry about hittin things on the road with it if your cars low but its nice and sounds great.
  19. I don't know about CottonBurnerz, but Matt's dyno and my dyno are both on the stock computer.
  20. Well, since I still have received Cottonburnerz or 03trublueGT's dynojet files I did the best I could.

    I printed off 03trubluGT's dyno graph because it had the higher numbers of the two and was the easiest to read.

    I used a ruler to pull my data from his graph and compared it to my graph. My numbers are exact numbers and his numbers are within 1-3 hp/tq.

    03trubluGT 2000GT
    rwhp/rwtq. rwhp.rwtq.
    3500 rpms 185/280 186.47/279.96
    4000 rpms 220/290 221.18/290.46
    4500 rpms 245/282 242.61/283.13
    5000 rpms 254/265 250.48/263.02
    5250 rpms 248/248 248.33/248.80
    5500 rpms 243/235 233.92/244.19
    5750 rpms 243/220 221.7/241.61

    So as you can see, everything is pretty much a wash until 5500 rpms. At 5500 rpms, my hp. fades and his tq. fades. His hp. stayed flat for the most part from 5000 - 5750 rpms. My tq. stay flat for the most part from 5000 -5750.

    This could be done more accurately if I had their dynojet files, but this is pretty close. I don't see any noticeable differences until after 5500 rpms. Perhaps if our 2V's rev. limiters where set higher and it didn't hurt our motors to shift at say 6500 rpms, LT's would produce more avg. hp. for a longer duration.

    It's interesting how much his tq. drops off compared to mine. I wasn't expecting that.

    In the end, LT's make more avg. rwhp and less avg. rwtq. from 5500 rpms to redline.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.