ACE A-350 dyno results - Did it deliver?

[nikitopo]

Very little peak gains on a header that is designed for road and track usage. Only +3whp including the Delicious tune? The only think I like is that the power doesn't drop so fast comparing to the older header, but still too difficult to justify the cost.

[Lantanafrs2]

The gains under the curve are substantial plus the car was road tuned at high altitude. Imo there are gains to be had up top with a little more tuning.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Very little peak gains on a header that is designed for road and track usage. Only +3whp including the Delicious tune? The only think I like is that the power doesn't drop so fast comparing to the older header, but still too difficult to justify the cost.

Area under the curve matters.

[jasonojordan]

I find it comical how engrossed people are with peak HP/TQ numbers.

This car shows how important dyno graphs really are at showing how these numbers are achieved versus just throwing a number out there.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Area under the curve matters.

That's what I said. I like that power doesn't drop so fast and this is also important. It is just that I cannot justify the total cost. Maybe it is just me.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

It is just that I cannot justify the total cost. Maybe it is just me.

The car has been out 6 years and the aftermarket has been settled for nearly 5 years once FI proved viable.
<$3k = NA only, max ~30hp gainz
$4k+ = FI, user decides on risk/reliability

It's not the 90's any more and nobody can break the laws of physics. Lots of people won't shell out for this package, some will, so what?
Props to Justin for throwing the dynos out there, I wish more people would.

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

That's what I said. I like that power doesn't drop so fast and this is also important. It is just that I cannot justify the total cost. Maybe it is just me.

Either I am not understanding you correctly or maybe your confused?

Area under the curve that mike is reffering to is the massssive gains the header has over pretty much every other header on the market in the area you spend most of your time driving the car(2500-5500rpm).

That said it is great that it does not drop off ontop as much as most headers do showing that it not only is capable for every day driving but also as a ring the nuts off it race header.

But each of us have different things we look at to justify what is worth it and whats not.

I think most people that get bothered by people who come along and say this header is not worth it are people who have never driven or riden in a car with this header and are only formulating their opinion based on peak hp and tq numbers. (Not saying you are one of these people at all just a matter of fact statement)

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by jasonojordan

Area under the curve that mike is reffering to is the massssive gains the header has over pretty much every other header on the market in the area you spend most of your time driving the car(2500-5500rpm).

I don't consider a gain something that was deliberately left from the factory like this. The purpose of the dip was to give great fuel efficiency by running lean on purpose in that range, where it is often used for cruising and in-town driving.


I am also critic on the high end gains, because this particular header costs something like twice the price of an ordinary aftermarket header. If you consider additionally the Ecutek licence and tune, the price goes close to the 3k territory. If the tune was provided for free in the price of the header, then we could have a discussion.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by jasonojordan

Area under the curve that mike is reffering to is the massssive gains the header has over pretty much every other header on the market in the area you spend most of your time driving the car(2500-5500rpm).

Mmmmhhhh..... evidence please? Revworks is a decent header but definitely not top tier.... Even then, I wouldn't say the gains are "massive", better for sure. Now let's talk about a header like PTuning, or one of the other top tier headers out there - maybe ACE will still come out on top regarding the low end, but my gut says it will be pretty close actually.

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Mmmmhhhh..... evidence please? Revworks is a decent header but definitely not top tier.... Even then, I wouldn't say the gains are "massive", better for sure. Now let's talk about a header like PTuning, or one of the other top tier headers out there - maybe ACE will still come out on top regarding the low end, but my gut says it will be pretty close actually.

Of the headers I have seen data on the only other header that came close was the Namless header.

There is a thread that compares 4 different headers (albeit on 4 diff cars with diff exhaust mods).

The picture links are all dead in that thread unfortunately.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

I don't consider a gain something that was deliberately left from the factory like this. The purpose of the dip was to give great fuel efficiency by running lean on purpose in that range, where it is often used for cruising and in-town driving.

Then why does an OTS tune on a stock car not get rid of the dip if that is the reason for it?


Pretty much stock car with OTS tunes. Still has dip.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47001

[Lantanafrs2]

Also note how the long tube header inverts the dip on the graph actually creating a small hump in the torque curve.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by jasonojordan

Of the headers I have seen data on the only other header that came close was the Namless header.

There is a thread that compares 4 different headers (albeit on 4 diff cars with diff exhaust mods).

The picture links are all dead in that thread unfortunately.

Yeah I've run into the same issue - even then it's hard to compare on dynos, on different days. You can sort-of make a comparison by looking at the general shape of the torque curve, and if both graphs have true stock baselines you can draw some general conclusions there by comparing percentage gains over the power band, but even then there's a lot of variables.

Anyways I probably shouldn't spend so much of my time comparing 86 header results lol - it's not like either one will let us keep up with that stock mustang 5.0

[jasonojordan]

Originally Posted by bfrank1972

Yeah I've run into the same issue - even then it's hard to compare on dynos, on different days. You can sort-of make a comparison by looking at the general shape of the torque curve, and if both graphs have true stock baselines you can draw some general conclusions there by comparing percentage gains over the power band, but even then there's a lot of variables.

Anyways I probably shouldn't spend so much of my time comparing 86 header results lol - it's not like either one will let us keep up with that stock mustang 5.0

You are correct. At the end of the day its still a NA 2.0L

Short of force induction there is no way to add substantial amounts of power. That said I am happy with where my car is now with the header and e85 tune as I knew it was "low on power" when I bought it.