Hipo manifolds vs headers, how much power loss? - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
Hipo manifolds vs headers, how much power loss?

I've been looking all over trying to get some quantifiable numbers on how much power I'd be losing using the hipo ex. manifolds vs tri Y headers. I'm running GT40p heads, so headers aren't cheap, but I'm also thinking it would be cool to have the engine look like a hipo "K" motor. Mustangs Plus has the hipo manifolds on sale for $250, and I'm tempted.
Here's my basic motor set up so far:

Edy 1405 600 cfm carb.
Weiand Stealth intake, port matched to heads
Gt40"P" heads
shooting for 10:1 compression
Comp cam, .480 lift 260 duration (206/206 @.5) roller cam
roller rockers
2.5" exhaust out rear valance (still refining)
T5 tranny

She's a weekend driver, losing a real small amount of power won't kill me...and not having to deal with header issues would be a plus (wife would probably like the quieter sound). But, if it would be a significant impact in your opinion, would love to know!
Thanks in advance!

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Lizer's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 6,134
 
I'm sure there will be some impact, but that it's an impact you'll noticeably feel I would doubt it.
Lizer is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Veronica's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,075
     
Hello. The difference is not that striking. The K codes were rated at 271hp, Shelby swapped out the the exhaust manifolds and the intake, which bumped the GT-350s up to a rating of 306 hp, and, I can't help but think that a lot of that increase was because of the intake. That cast iron 4bbl intake that Ford used was not very good. It would be difficult to design one that was less efficient and still worked, while, the S1MS that Shelby used was an aluminum intake that is virtually identical to an Edelbrock Performer.
Veronica is online now  
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
Thanks, I've been thinking the same thing. And why spend an extra $250 for something I won't really feel...And the Hipo manifolds maintain a factory look in there. They look pretty free flowing, while yah, the regular manifolds look like they belong on a model T.
Thanks Veronica and Ken..

I've been told the Hipo manifold works well with the GT40"P" heads...anyone with experience pulling plugs with that combo? Any links to dyno results with/without Hipo manifolds? I can't find anything...

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012
GT Member
 
Joes72/65's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Imperial Beach
Posts: 1,462
 
I really don't think there would be any power loss at all below 4k. I don't push my '65 that hard very often, so I leave my Model T manifolds alone and enjoy the cooler underhood temps and ease of maintenance.

Joe
'65 Coupe, 302, Autolite 4100, C4, 2.80
'72 Grande, 351C, Motorcraft 2100, FMX, 2.75
Joes72/65 is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012
GT Member
S197 Member
 
jgard07's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Eastern
Posts: 1,159
 
You'd be looking at an 8-10% loss over a good set of headers. Tri-y's aren't always the answer.

07 GT premium in Grabber Orange. 5spd. manual w/ a few bolt-ons.
jgard07 is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012
Apprentice
 
Alex_32420's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Carlisle
Posts: 113
 
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joes72/65 View Post
I leave my Model T manifolds alone and enjoy the cooler underhood temps and ease of maintenance.
Original Stock (cast-iron) exhaust manifolds, keep under hood temperatures higher then a good set of quality Headers.

Ceramic coated headers keep the engine bay temperatures cooler and act as an insulator for the headers keeping the exhaust air hot and moving faster, less heat escaping the header vs stock manifolds.

I recommend Doug's Tri-Y Headers over the cheap china made garbage, the primaries are larger, quality is better all around, cost is more expensive..
Dougs = 1-5/8" primaries into 2" into 2.5" collectors
China Made Tri-Y = 1-1/2" primaries into 1-3/4" into 2.5" collectors

The difference is note-worthy, through-out the RPM range, you'll get enhanced torque & hp, a better flowing exhaust, better mpg, and a cooler running engine.
Alex_32420 is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgard07 View Post
You'd be looking at an 8-10% loss over a good set of headers. Tri-y's aren't always the answer.
That much? I'd think that would be very noticeable. I'm guessing my power is around 300 h.p., so we're talking 24- 30 h.p.????
Of course, that'd be at the very top of the RPM range, a place I'll frankly hardly be. Still, that's a lot of sacrifice considering what I've spent to be where I'm already at..

Are shorties that much better than the Hipo's?

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2012
PONY Member
 
danielf's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Mojave
Posts: 535
 
Honestly you will. Those tri-y headers have small primaries and were designed for low end torq. You WILL notice the difference and let me tell you, when you go down in performance you will NOT be happy. I didn't see what short block you have. 289 or 302? Btw, sometimes tri-y's ARE the answer. There is a reason why they have been copied a million times by just about everyone out there. You said 1405 carb. Isnt it 1406? I think 1405 is a 500cfm right? Idk I'm not sure. Anyway. Shelby gained 35hp over the standard k-code motor by adding tri-y headers, dual plain high rise alumn intake, 715cfm carb and a 7.5 qrt oil pan. Not that that has anything to do with it. It in theory the more oil in the pan the cooler it is and the cooler the oil the cooler the engine, allowing the engine run better and stay closer to operating temps.

1966 Mustang 2+2, 289 c code/c4, Edel 600cfm/performer carb, intake/spacer,Comp XE250H Cam, pertronix igintor w/ coil, tri-y headers, dual factory 2"exhaust w/ H-pipe, flex fan, UDP's, windage tray, Grab-a-track Suspension, B&M shift kit, 2.80 w/track lock diff.

2004 Toyota Tacoma TRD Prerunner
2006 Nissan Sentra (wifes' car)
danielf is offline  
PONY Member
 
danielf's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Mojave
Posts: 535
 
I too have been trying to build my own hipo/shelby so ive got penty of info. The best is an artical i found in my MM subscription. Heres the link....

1965 Hi-Po Engine vs. Shelby 289 Short-Block - Mustang Monthly

1966 Mustang 2+2, 289 c code/c4, Edel 600cfm/performer carb, intake/spacer,Comp XE250H Cam, pertronix igintor w/ coil, tri-y headers, dual factory 2"exhaust w/ H-pipe, flex fan, UDP's, windage tray, Grab-a-track Suspension, B&M shift kit, 2.80 w/track lock diff.

2004 Toyota Tacoma TRD Prerunner
2006 Nissan Sentra (wifes' car)
danielf is offline  
post #11 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
Thanks Dan!
To answer your questions...oops, yes, it's a 302 bottom end, 40 over. And the 1405 Eddy is the manual choke version of the 600 cfm 1406.

From all my research, the best perfomers do appear to be running the tr-y's, at least for the street. Hard for me to argue with years of experience and dyno results.

Seams to me the Shelby addition of the intake and headers where the biggest power changers...the combo of both no doubt really did it, but assigning the power gain of just the headers would be tough. Especially, as Veronica stated, with how poor the original 4V intake was.
Thanks for the link Dan, will check that out now...

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Lizer's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 6,134
 
So if you just want a street car why did you do a 1.75" UCA drop?
Lizer is offline  
post #13 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
That was a good article, realized I already read it (must be getting old). Nice to know they got 303 hp with lesser heads and a flat tappet cam, I should be above that somewhere with the GT40p's and the full roller setup.

I have a list of headers that supposedly work on the GT40p's, but I'm betting there's more that would work with short plugs. I look at pictures of some of them that supposedly don't fit, but the primaries look like they'd clear the straight out plugs on my heads..I might start calling the manufacturers and ask if they've tried..

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
post #14 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2012 Thread Starter
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Dangerous Dan's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Sonora
Posts: 125
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizer View Post
So if you just want a street car why did you do a 1.75" UCA drop?
Hi Ken,
I did a lot of research on that. The 1.75" drop actually yields the best camber curve, for street OR track. While the static adjustment differs for both, it's the curve that you want to maintain the tire patch. Only reason the 1" drop is so popular is because people don't want to buy/do the negative wedge for the upper ball joint. I was able to fabricate my own.

Dan

'66 GT coupe deluxe, total restoration, not on road since '80...father/sons project... T5. Edelbrock 1405, Weiand Stealth, GT40p's, 1.75" UCA drop, Still building..
Dangerous Dan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Random Question

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183