I comented before that I would buy them despite the dyno numbers. But with all this hush hush on the numbers it is making me wonder about the resutls even more.

SPILL IT!

 

Jbrady
I know the Y- pipe is suppose to be different on the 98-00 GS400 vs.01 + GS430 I checked all the posts and did see a diagram of the 98-00 Y- pipe Do you have one to post? I found on post #484 the GS430 & LS430 y pipe and exhaust system.

 

Either the gains are really dissapointing or the gains were huge and they want to surprise us

 

SPILL THE BEANS ALREADY!!!!!! The suspense is nerve racking!!!

 

Please any 430 owners let me know how well these work would def like a set but don't wanna be the one to try them out first (lol)..........Hope the numbers speak for themselfes.....

 

Word guys. What's the deal?

Jonny

 

BTW the GS400 y pipe is interchangeable with the GS430 y pipe. We did the swap on Monday just prior to the dyno on my GS430. I have gawd's gs400 y pipe on my GS430 and he has mine on his ride. This only resolves 50% of the fitment issues for GS430 owners. What is unknown is the length of the cats coming off the manifold. One would think these are interchangeable as well but until its actually done...

 

Guys, just spoke to John and he's working diligently to get those charts up today. Until then, here are some quick pics.

 

You have lambo style doors on your car, gawd?

For a brief moment when I got the email notification that you had posted an update and there were pics linked in the email, I thought you had scanned the dyno sheets and posted those up.......

 

You may recall my earlier post.

More quotes from that same post:

Now, back to the dyno runs just completed. While it is normal and usual for people to want quick "sound byte" answers to their quick oversimplified questions... the truth is that you MUST know and compare the FULL range of information gathered in order to draw logical and acurate conclusions.

So, that said I am NOT going to just type in the peak numbers. I know human nature and that will be to skip all this and look at the peak numbers.

Instead, I am going to focus on another GS400, owned by CL member Halo, who was also had his GS400 dyno'd same day same dyno. The reason is that in those 2 pulls the peak numbers were within 1hp and 1tq of each other. NOW, if you look at the numbers between 3500rpm and 4000rpm the torque figures varied by as much as 15rwtq with an average difference of about 12rwtq. WHY? Same car, same dyno, back to back runs, no changes. You would tend to think that it was because the car was hot. Actually, no, the higher recorded run was the LAST run

So, what I am saying is on this car WHAT IF he had made some ineffective change, say added different spark plugs or grounding wires or changed air filters, etc. The quick conclusion would have been "it gained/lost 1hp and it gained/lost 20tq in the midrange". Ask yourself, would that be a reasonable conclusion?

Now, Halo's car put down 246rwhp and 253rwtq. Power peaked at 6000rpm holding nearly peak to fuel cut at 6350rpm. Torque peaked at 4300rpm. This car has the SRT intake/early ECU. I am not aware of any other power mods.

gawd faxed me 4 dyno pages. Halo's 2 runs were on one page. One page contained 2 runs, one was Halo's best and the other gawd's best. These 2 pages were relatively easy to read. The other 2 pages each had 4 runs on them and decifering which run was which as the lines crossed at at LEAST 8 points is not as easy.

Considering that the data above on only Halo's car showed a big variance in mid range torque it is also inconclusive about other mid range chart data.

A CRITICAL piece of information is missing as none of the cars had their air fuel ratios measured. Based on gawd's baseline his car WAS reading 11.5 to one ratio. This is MUCH to rich for peak power. Halo's car is making what I would expect to see a stock engine with the SRT intake and gawd's baseline was 15rwhp less.

I just had a LONG conversation with gawd and he helped decifer the various multi reading sheets. With this I will post the results soon.

 

not to be a smart ***. but honestly most people are just concerned with peak numbers for a mod like this, not just changing the powerband around. of course more low-mid rpm torque would also be desirable.

typical header hp gains on a V8 with stock exhaust manifolds are 10-20hp-I'm sure that's what people want to see.

 

I think JBrady explained this well.

A company making these headers would be able to run multiple dyno runs over time to show a meaningful set of data. In our case just running back to back dyno's on gawds car is not going to be a very good indication of true gains.

 

Multiple dyno runs over time??
I mean it either works or it doesnt work right?

Where not talking formula 1 racing here, it sound to me that the guys just want to know if the thing increased HP, decreased hp, or moved the power band around.
If there was an issue with Gawds setup then so be it but the questions still stand.

As for the analogy with a company, I dont know if that applies, JB is not in it for profit a company is.
A company would have done the testing prior to selling them, in our situation this was not possible.

A company would have there r&D and testing highly confidential and secretive, CL is open and more reminiscent of a users group where information is shared, without thought of the possible ramifications.

Any way thats my 2 cents

 

Actually, that's Halo's car with the lambo doors. He and TXGS were kind enough to accompany me to the dyno so we could get additional info on the cars.

Call me a tease

 

Thank you, this is correct, we have ONE car running ONE set of before and after pulls on the ONE set of headers in existance. No tuning was done of ANY kind. The fact that I am NOT the "company" and not doing this for profit puts this entire exercise in a MUCH different light than a typical marketing promotional "dyno" test.

With all due respect to chuckb and Morris... the very reason that I have been spending a great deal of time explaining this IS to HOPEFULLY preclude quick snap judgements.

AGAIN, we have ONE car that was NOT tuned correctly on the BASELINE and then that SAME car without A/F ratios (tuning data) on the follow up test dyno. NEVER will a manufacturer that is advertising performance information do this.

That said, we have incomplete data. No A/F ratios, NO usable data below 4600rpm. Previous peak torque seems TOO high. Torque on Halo's car varied 15rwtq on back to back runs below 4200rpm. Neither gawd's car or TXGS's car had full throttle/full load info below 4600rpm. gawd's baseline torque peak occured at 4300rpm. Before and after torque at 4600rpm was the same for the baseline and for the header runs. This number is 236rwtq.

Horsepower increased from 4600 and gained 2rwhp at 5400rpm, 7rwhp at 5600rpm, 10rwhp at 6100rpm and 15rwhp at 6300rpm. Peak power was at 6200rpm at 237.5rwhp.

Again, there is something wrong with the tuning on this car. No tuning was made. If the A/Fratio is still 11.5 to one there is 15+rwhp to be gained in this alone. This car should have in the neighborhood of 250-260rwhp when the A/F problem is corrected.

Additionally, the dyno conditions were miserable for making power, 99 degrees, high humidity. As I have said before my car makes SUBSTANTIALLY more power in cold air. This is not the final word on the power these 1UZFEs are capable of. It is really just the beginning. Stay tuned.