OTL 2Gen header 20hp+

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Blighty

So what's the problem, just that you don't think a car can only pull 194hp on a dyno because its delta from the 'average of random reported dynos' is about 10% off?

The problem:

The factory header is already *very* good, which is how they are getting ~240 crank hp from 2.4 liters, at only 7000rpm (we know the factory 228hp is underrated, multiple ~210rwhp +/- dyno results and 1/4-mile trap speeds of 101mph back up ~240 crank hp). Losing the high-flow factory cat by itself isn't going to gain much, on the order of 1-2%. To make big gains in peak power would require changing header tube lengths to maximize power up top, which should also give a dip in the midrange. For sure the hp/torque curves would look *different* from stock. But dyno plots show similar power/torque curve shapes, so they must not have tuned primary tube lengths to get top-end power. They show their outlier (low) baseline curves shifted *way* up everywhere in the rev range. That's not possible with "just a header", not by a long shot.

Getting 10% increase from a non tuned header is huge, no doubt. But according to tuner I've seen they were getting pretty much that on the old car with an exhaust (headers) - adding around 10kw to baselines of between 105-110kw. That's not far off.

"According to tuner"... My experience with '17+ factory vs. aftermarket headers is that a good equal-length catless header designed for max high-rpm power is good for about +4% peak power, but 0% at the infamous torque dip. And a good aftermarket header designed for maximum midrange is good for 0% peak power up top, but +6.6% peak torque over stock max, and relocated right in the middle of the old torque dip. Both of those are *with* good tunes specifically developed for the cars in question.

With a header *and a tune* you can get peak changes on the order of ~+5% vs. factory, but only in specific rev ranges vs. stock. And average gains are more like 2% over the rev range.

So what is dodgy, what do you trust?

What is dodgy: even just on the face of it, +10% from "just a header" is fricking dodgy without significant evidence to back it up. +10% is unheard of even for headers specifically designed for maximum power up top. Add to that they show power/torque curves identical to stock but shifted *way* up. +10% *everywhere*, from "just a header", vs. a known-good factory header? No way, it's just not happening.

What I would trust: Independent verification that the *only* mod is this header, no other mods to the car, measured weight with driver at the drag strip, and multiple 1/4-mile runs at 104mph (with standard correction for altitude, temperature, etc. as magazine test results usually are). That would indicate +10% more power.

Or independent source dynoing with this header, and with the factory header, at the same independent known-reliable dyno.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And +10% *everywhere* from "just a header", vs. a factory header that is very good already, is quite an extraordinary claim...

[Lantanafrs2]

I think the shop just lost some credibility

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Lol. Honestly mate, you are so slippery.

Not being slippery. It has all already been said (though I see Dan summed it up again).

You are just trying to rationalize what you want to hear and ignoring the rest.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

I think the shop just lost some credibility

Yep.
I asked a bunch of questions there 24 hours ago and said maybe they were right. They deleted my questions.
Everyone should report them to YouTube for scammy shit.

[RToyo86]

If the post header power numbers weren't in line with the "other day" baseline numbers the video confirming the same car made 205-210whp on that dyno it would not look fishy.

A 205-210whp baseline to a 212whp post header dyno lines up with other catless headers tested.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Blighty

So what's the problem, just that you don't think a car can only pull 194hp on a dyno because its delta from the 'average of random reported dynos' is about 10% off?

Look I dont know if its dodgy, but I know I've seen bigger discrepancies on the original 86. Mine stock was 150hp (on hub dyno, so should report higher). If you averaged out all the 'reported' dynos on here I have no doubt it would be more than 10% down. People do not like posting low number, and dyno people love fabricating high ones.

Getting 10% increase from a non tuned header is huge, no doubt. But according to tuner I've seen they were getting pretty much that on the old car with an exhaust (headers) - adding around 10kw to baselines of between 105-110kw. That's not far off.

So what is dodgy, what do you trust?

For reference, here is the tuner talking about the stock 86, the stock and bolt ons without a tune, and also the a dyno from a 2022 BRZ.

It's the combination of abnormally low baseline, high delta, and the graph for the new header looking almost exactly like the stock graph but just cranked up.

........then there is the whole deleting youtube comments thing.

[CincyJohn]

Originally Posted by Blighty

So what's the problem, just that you don't think a car can only pull 194hp on a dyno because its delta from the 'average of random reported dynos' is about 10% off?

Look I dont know if its dodgy, but I know I've seen bigger discrepancies on the original 86. Mine stock was 150hp (on hub dyno, so should report higher). If you averaged out all the 'reported' dynos on here I have no doubt it would be more than 10% down. People do not like posting low number, and dyno people love fabricating high ones.

Getting 10% increase from a non tuned header is huge, no doubt. But according to tuner I've seen they were getting pretty much that on the old car with an exhaust (headers) - adding around 10kw to baselines of between 105-110kw. That's not far off.

So what is dodgy, what do you trust?

For reference, here is the tuner talking about the stock 86, the stock and bolt ons without a tune, and also the a dyno from a 2022 BRZ.

I never trusted these guys/these results from the second I saw them. Why? Because lots of people have done dyno runs on the Gen2 using multiple different decatted headers from Gen1 and gotten little if any gains.

And sorry, simple logic tells you that there is no reason to believe this "prototype" decatted header from a not well known source is going to all of a sudden blow those results away. It simply doesn't make sense, at least not to me.

[ZDan]

I posted this in the comments to the video:
"Dyno plots show that you are using standard SAE correction. This should account for different temperatures and other factors and yield fairly consistent results. Very surprised you saw only 192 corrected rwhp totally stock on this day vs. previous result of nearly 210rwhp off the showroom floor."

See if it survives...

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by ZDan

The problem:

The factory header is already *very* good, which is how they are getting ~240 crank hp from 2.4 liters, at only 7000rpm (we know the factory 228hp is underrated, multiple ~210rwhp +/- dyno results and 1/4-mile trap speeds of 101mph back up ~240 crank hp). Losing the high-flow factory cat by itself isn't going to gain much, on the order of 1-2%. To make big gains in peak power would require changing header tube lengths to maximize power up top, which should also give a dip in the midrange. For sure the hp/torque curves would look *different* from stock. But dyno plots show similar power/torque curve shapes, so they must not have tuned primary tube lengths to get top-end power. They show their outlier (low) baseline curves shifted *way* up everywhere in the rev range. That's not possible with "just a header", not by a long shot.

"According to tuner"... My experience with '17+ factory vs. aftermarket headers is that a good equal-length catless header designed for max high-rpm power is good for about +4% peak power, but 0% at the infamous torque dip. And a good aftermarket header designed for maximum midrange is good for 0% peak power up top, but +6.6% peak torque over stock max, and relocated right in the middle of the old torque dip. Both of those are *with* good tunes specifically developed for the cars in question.

With a header *and a tune* you can get peak changes on the order of ~+5% vs. factory, but only in specific rev ranges vs. stock. And average gains are more like 2% over the rev range.


What is dodgy: even just on the face of it, +10% from "just a header" is fricking dodgy without significant evidence to back it up. +10% is unheard of even for headers specifically designed for maximum power up top. Add to that they show power/torque curves identical to stock but shifted *way* up. +10% *everywhere*, from "just a header", vs. a known-good factory header? No way, it's just not happening.

What I would trust: Independent verification that the *only* mod is this header, no other mods to the car, measured weight with driver at the drag strip, and multiple 1/4-mile runs at 104mph (with standard correction for altitude, temperature, etc. as magazine test results usually are). That would indicate +10% more power.

Or independent source dynoing with this header, and with the factory header, at the same independent known-reliable dyno.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And +10% *everywhere* from "just a header", vs. a factory header that is very good already, is quite an extraordinary claim...

Oh I think a bit more fairness could be had, everyone selling shit usually cant be trusted but thats nothing new - though I'm not even sure he is selling shit.

I guess I trust these average 213whp about as much as I trust the average 170whp from the OG... A value constantly perpetuated by bullshittery in both only having those that report want to report when they get it high, and the business of making customers happy by making sure your dyno is set-up to read high, treated fuel... yadda yadda.

So when I see someone post a number like 194whp for the new one, I go yeah sure that's possible.

Now I am not saying he is definitely making that much from his header, but he still deserves to not be shitted on immediately. As far as I am concerned everyone that makes a header posts BS dyno graphs (some supposedly 'independent').

I didn't measure his new header, I have no idea how much impact his design might have - but like in the video I just put out there, evidence contrary to it being impossible to get 10% from an untuned header does to exist. You can make suggestions yourself of how much of a percentage of more efficiency can be made from the stock header, and how its almost perfect as is, but I mean where is that from, whats the evidence you have? Nothing I am telling you is from me, everything has a source. I didnt make it up. And its a highly respected tuning shop, not some nobody.

IMO its a bit unfair to smash this guys youtube. Are we all going to smash the ACE headers website because we didnt get 200+ WHP? Its fair to ask questions (I did the same on GruppeM air ram because they have an odd situation what they say and what they show on the dyno doesnt match), but its should be polite - not this crazed 11 year old schoolgirl clicque where everyone talks shit with the head girl saying 'Well all us girls feel this way'. *cough* tcoat *cough*.

If he is getting abused, childish smartasses, or straight up being called a liar, then I don't think its strange for someone to delete them.

(I don't think your one should be deleted though, its pretty fair.)


And what's this about the crank - has someone done a crank dyno for us to _know_ what is it?

[Spektyr]

Originally Posted by Blighty

So when I see someone post a number like 194whp for the new one, I go yeah sure that's possible.

If this is a problem for you, you're not paying attention. People aren't saying "initial dyno too low - obviously fake" and hitting submit.

What people are saying is that it's suspicious that the initial dyno is so low, and then when you add the with-custom-header dyno looks exactly the same, just bumped up over double what you'd expect from really good headers, it's difficult to believe.

Headers play a quantifiable role in WHERE an engine makes its power/torque. If you change them you should see a change in the power/torque curve. It is very weird to see a uniform change across the entire curve.

So the low "before" dyno isn't suspicious because it's low, it's suspicious because it's identical AND lower than the "after" dyno. It looks like it was deliberately lowered to make the after dyno look better.

Could a stock car be making those numbers? Absolutely. They're all built on the same line, but they're by no means identical.

Could a stock car see a 10% increase in peak horsepower with aftermarket headers, no tune, and no change to the shape of the power/torque curve? Extremely unlikely. Profoundly unlikely.

The low initial dyno is a red flag. It's not the red flag.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Oh I think a bit more fairness could be had, everyone selling shit usually cant be trusted but thats nothing new - though I'm not even sure he is selling shit.

I guess I trust these average 213whp about as much as I trust the average 170whp from the OG... A value constantly perpetuated by bullshittery in both only having those that report want to report when they get it high, and the business of making customers happy by making sure your dyno is set-up to read high, treated fuel... yadda yadda.

So when I see someone post a number like 194whp for the new one, I go yeah sure that's possible.

Now I am not saying he is definitely making that much from his header, but he still deserves to not be shitted on immediately. As far as I am concerned everyone that makes a header posts BS dyno graphs (some supposedly 'independent').

I didn't measure his new header, I have no idea how much impact his design might have - but like in the video I just put out there, evidence contrary to it being impossible to get 10% from an untuned header does to exist. You can make suggestions yourself of how much of a percentage of more efficiency can be made from the stock header, and how its almost perfect as is, but I mean where is that from, whats the evidence you have? Nothing I am telling you is from me, everything has a source. I didnt make it up. And its a highly respected tuning shop, not some nobody.

IMO its a bit unfair to smash this guys youtube. Are we all going to smash the ACE headers website because we didnt get 200+ WHP? Its fair to ask questions (I did the same on GruppeM air ram because they have an odd situation what they say and what they show on the dyno doesnt match), but its should be polite - not this crazed 11 year old schoolgirl clicque where everyone talks shit with the head girl saying 'Well all us girls feel this way'. *cough* tcoat *cough*.

If he is getting abused, childish smartasses, or straight up being called a liar, then I don't think its strange for someone to delete them.

(I don't think your one should be deleted though, its pretty fair.)


And what's this about the crank - has someone done a crank dyno for us to _know_ what is it?

Look, you want to believe in spite of what so many are saying that is up to you but people pointing out the concerns they have is hardly "crazed 11 year old girl" material. We all "feel this way" because something is wrong someplace in their numbers. It really is simple as that. We have no hidden agendas, malice, or animosity towards them we just think something is wrong and point it out.

Everything said by people here also has a source. They just aren't sources you agree with so you don't want to hear it.

You don't like what we have to say then great though attacking us is not an argument in their favour but if you want to go that route I am up for it.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Blighty

Oh I think a bit more fairness could be had, everyone selling shit usually cant be trusted but thats nothing new - though I'm not even sure he is selling shit.

They are *selling* the idea that bolting on this header, *by itself*, gave them big gains everywhere in the rev range and +20rwhp. Bullshit...

I guess I trust these average 213whp about as much as I trust the average 170whp from the OG... A value constantly perpetuated by bullshittery in both only having those that report want to report when they get it high, and the business of making customers happy by making sure your dyno is set-up to read high, treated fuel... yadda yadda.

213whp is supported by 1/4-mile trap speeds. This equation has always worked very well for most n.a. cars (not so good for some modern turbocharged cars that make their "peak" horsepower over a *very* broad rpm range though...)

crank hp ~= (1/4-mile mph/234)^3 * weight in pounds
2nd gen FT86:
(101mph/234)^3 * (2843 lb. + 165 lb.) = ~242 crank hp
Dyno losses for manual transmission FR cars is around 13%, 0.87*242hp = 210 rwhp.

It makes sense.

For OG FT86, they all seemed to hit 95mph in the 1/4.

(95mph/234)^3 * (2800 lb. + 165 lb.) = 198 crank hp
198 crank * 0.87 = 172 rwhp

That's about average for '17+ cars (FWIW mine and my bud's '17 cars both did 179rwhp on dynojet). A bit high for earlier cars, but 2800 lb. is a bit heavy for earlier cars too...

So when I see someone post a number like 194whp for the new one, I go yeah sure that's possible.

Not when it's reliably hitting 101mph in the 1/4.

But ALSO, these guys say their '22 dynoed "nearly 210hp" off the showroom floor! Which is very consistent with other reported dynojet results. The *corrected* horsepower for the same car with no changes should not have dropped from ~209 rwhp to 193 rwhp. No fricking way...

The 193 rwhp result is *highly* suspect. It doesn't line up with other Dynojet standard SAE corrected reesults, and it doesn't line up with tested 1/4-mile mph. And it doesn't line up with their own ~209rwhp previous result with the stock car!

Now I am not saying he is definitely making that much from his header, but he still deserves to not be shitted on immediately. As far as I am concerned everyone that makes a header posts BS dyno graphs (some supposedly 'independent').

Anybody that posts BS dyno graphs, "independent" or not, deserves to be shitted on immediately.

If their results aren't due to outright rigging of the supposed 193rwhp run, they definitely screwed up there somewhere and didn't catch it. But in any case they should fricking know better.

I didn't measure his new header, I have no idea how much impact his design might have - but like in the video I just put out there, evidence contrary to it being impossible to get 10% from an untuned header does to exist.

A TUNER saying he can get 10% from a header and a tune, isn't independent testing. 10% from "header and tune" in a '17+ first-gen is IMO not realistic. Maybe with E85... '17+ 1st gen header is very good, and the best EL headers designed for max power can make ~+5% with a good tune.

You can make suggestions yourself of how much of a percentage of more efficiency can be made from the stock header, and how its almost perfect as is, but I mean where is that from, whats the evidence you have?

Making 100hp/liter at 7000rpm is not easy. For sure if the exhaust is corking up ~10% *everywhere* it would make it that much harder.

But aside from that are the numerous other red flags. The "baseline" 193rwhp with the factory header is way out of line vs. what others are getting for corrected Dynojet rwhp, *and also way out of line with their previous results with the same car*!

I mean, it's kinda laughable really.

Nothing I am telling you is from me, everything has a source. I didnt make it up. And its a highly respected tuning shop, not some nobody.

And they'd have no incentive at all to inflate their results I guess?!

If he is getting abused, childish smartasses, or straight up being called a liar, then I don't think its strange for someone to delete them.

(I don't think your one should be deleted though, its pretty fair.)

Yeah, that's really my main question. What is *up* with that 193rwhp *corrected* number?

At best, they screwed up somewhere and didn't realize it and actually think they are making big gains absolutely everywhere in the rev range with this header alone. But if they think that, they're being very naive, and should know better. Results like this should have them wondering what went wrong with their testing. But hey, take it to the drag strip and lets see those 104mph trap speeds, with no other mods!

And what's this about the crank - has someone done a crank dyno for us to _know_ what is it?

See above equation for crank hp vs. 1/4-mile trap speed. It's not perfect (particularly for forced-induction cars) but it's *remarkably* good for n.a. FR cars in particular.

[Lincoln Logs]

Originally Posted by ZDan

At best, they screwed up somewhere and didn't realize it and actually think they are making big gains absolutely everywhere in the rev range with this header alone. But if they think that, they're being very naive, and should know better. Results like this should have them wondering what went wrong with their testing. But hey, take it to the drag strip and lets see those 104mph trap speeds, with no other mods!

I worked for a major shop that developed a long tube header for another platform in 2016 and the owner made a MAJOR mistake when testing. The owner swore up and down the results were real and we sold a lot of the headers based on his dyno days and the data he gathered. Come to find out, during independent testing from our customers, the results were bunk and we had some VERY upset customers. Almost everyone had to be refunded. It is easy for a shop to get caught up in development of a new platform, there is a lot of hype and pressure to make the purchase of another car profitable. At best, it is a mistake like you said or at worst they are just trying to find a way to justify all the work they have poured into jigs, time, etc.

Also to support how good stock equipment is on the 2017+, I had almost no gains from going to a catless UEL header compared to stock. A little more in the mid-range but that was it.

[FrickingReallySlow]

What was the MAJOR mistake when testing? don't leave us hanging lol

Originally Posted by Lincoln Logs

I worked for a major shop that developed a long tube header for another platform in 2016 and the owner made a MAJOR mistake when testing. The owner swore up and down the results were real and we sold a lot of the headers based on his dyno days and the data he gathered. Come to find, during out in independent testing from our customers, the results were bunk and we had some VERY upset customers. Almost everyone had to be refunded. It is easy for a shop to get caught up in development of a new platform, there is a lot of hype and pressure to make the purchase of another car profitable. At best, it is a mistake like you said or at worst they are just trying to find a way to justify all the work they have poured into jigs, time, etc.

Also to support how good stock equipment is on the 2017+, I had almost no gains from going to a catless UEL header compared to stock. A little more in the mid-range but that was it.