No worries! Better scavenging than a normal H pipe.robroy wrote:'Morning Aaron, thanks for the photo (worth a thousand words)!
Why are these gadgets desirable?
Thanks again,
-Robroy
2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; which is better?
Moderators: Ranchero50, DuckRyder
- Redcap
- Blue Oval Fanatic
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Washington, Centralia
- Contact:
- robroy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 pm
- Location: California, Salinas
- Redcap
- Blue Oval Fanatic
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Washington, Centralia
- Contact:
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
H pipe.
While I understand the principle, someone else will be able to explain the scavenging effect better than I can.
- robroy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 pm
- Location: California, Salinas
- mrtleavitt
- Blue Oval Fanatic
- Posts: 767
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:26 pm
- Location: Overton, NV
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
The "X" allows a perfect balance of pressure between both banks. As I was told by the exhaust shop that they create more top and bottom end! If you are making a serious engine, an "X" exhaust is a must. I would say anything over 350 hp. And yes, they go before the muffler. "X" gives a better flow, but "H" is a good way to go if you want to save $100.
- Redcap
- Blue Oval Fanatic
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Washington, Centralia
- Contact:
- robroy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 pm
- Location: California, Salinas
- 69NVF100
- New Member
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:28 am
- Location: Puyallup, WA
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
I have Dual 3" all the way thru with an h pipe and I am pushing close to 400 HP It is probally a little overkill but it sounds good and I did it before I knew better oh well next time I will research more
1972 SWB 400 HP 347 cid, C-6, 2wd.
- robroy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 pm
- Location: California, Salinas
- 69NVF100
- New Member
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:28 am
- Location: Puyallup, WA
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
Yeah it Definitely looks BEEFY but as for low end loss I don't know ? I haven't really noticed but I am sure there is some.
1972 SWB 400 HP 347 cid, C-6, 2wd.
- robroy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 3768
- Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 pm
- Location: California, Salinas
- averagef250
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 4387
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:58 am
- Location: Oregon, Beavercreek
Dual 2.5 should be perfect. 3" is overkill for most engines. I know many making 450+ HP through 2.5 duals. A friends 63 Nova runs a dyno'd 470 HP/430TQ 383 through 2 1/4 duals with 3 chamber flowmasters. It runs 11 flat in the quarter. He shifts it at around 6800 and there is no lack of top end power.
1970 F-250 4x4 original Willock swivel frame chassis '93 5.9 Cummins/Getrag/NP205/HP60/D70
- fomocoguy
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:04 pm
- Location: St. Louis, MO
2.5 inch with an "x" or "h" will serve you well. Just remember if you want to take advantage of all those ponies that you should use quality flow through style mufflers, like Hooker Max Flows or Magnaflows. Your Borlas are probably flow throughs, but I'm not 100% certain. I DO know that the recipe for a finely tuned performance exhaust is proper scavenging (achieved by not going too big on the pipe) and high flow (achieved with high quality flow through mufflers).
As for scavenging, the idea is that the exhaust pulses will pull each other out as they leave the pipe. This creates a higher exhaust gas velocity, which in turn, for lack of better words, "sucks" the exhaust out of the heads when the exhaust valves open. Use pipe that is too big and the gases lose their velocity. By the end of their travel the pulses are pushing each other out, clogging the system so to speak. Restrictive mufflers also clog the system.
Here's a link to some neat flow bench results. I've posted this before, but I like it because it backs up some stories I've heard about mufflers that killed power when added, or shocked people when they removed them and added a higher flow design: http://www.broaderperformance.com/muffl ... _tests.htm
As for scavenging, the idea is that the exhaust pulses will pull each other out as they leave the pipe. This creates a higher exhaust gas velocity, which in turn, for lack of better words, "sucks" the exhaust out of the heads when the exhaust valves open. Use pipe that is too big and the gases lose their velocity. By the end of their travel the pulses are pushing each other out, clogging the system so to speak. Restrictive mufflers also clog the system.
Here's a link to some neat flow bench results. I've posted this before, but I like it because it backs up some stories I've heard about mufflers that killed power when added, or shocked people when they removed them and added a higher flow design: http://www.broaderperformance.com/muffl ... _tests.htm
Joe
1971 F100 flareside 8ft
1964 Chrysler New Yorker Town and Country wagon
2006 Dodge Ram 2500 cummins
2005 Ford Ranger
1971 F100 flareside 8ft
1964 Chrysler New Yorker Town and Country wagon
2006 Dodge Ram 2500 cummins
2005 Ford Ranger
-
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:24 pm
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
just so you know before you decide you could also look at a pro-chamber box too. the h pipe , x pipe & pro chamber all have some advantages/ disadvantages . decide which is best for your set up. and as usual super advice here.
- Dragon
- 100% FORDified!
- Posts: 2659
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
- Contact:
re: 2.5" vs 3" pipe size for high powered FE; whic
Last but least a study done in Britain in the late sixties and published in Hot Rod Magazine later showed that on muffler equiped cars the best power was when the mufflers front end was 3/4s of the way back from the manifold exit. I have done my cars and trucks that way ever since. If the car design does not let me move the mufflers I change where the pipes exit. The muffler entrance causes the scavenging pulses to reflect and they said that distance made more even power.
Old Fords Rule
Was a Ford Service Tech
71 F250 with Shell Car 390 NP435 Dana 60 3.73s, PS, PB, 750 EC VS Holley Accel Points Eliminator.
98 Volvo S70 2.4T Auto
71 Service manuals Volumes 1,2,3 and 4 So ask away.
My Gallery
Spark test
Was a Ford Service Tech
71 F250 with Shell Car 390 NP435 Dana 60 3.73s, PS, PB, 750 EC VS Holley Accel Points Eliminator.
98 Volvo S70 2.4T Auto
71 Service manuals Volumes 1,2,3 and 4 So ask away.
My Gallery
Spark test